Finance (No. 4) Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

Again, I am pleased that I gave way, as I think that is an excellent suggestion, which we really should take up. Of course the series of interventions on the 50p rate from the current Mayor of London—I say current; I hope he will not be Mayor for much longer—and, indeed, the series doubtless coming from the Chancellor’s and Prime Minister’s other wealthy mates, backed up the ideological decision to get rid of it. In fact, I am tempted to say that the cut in the 50p rate gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “mates’ rates”.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that when, in November 2008—for the first time and 11 and a half years into the Labour Government—the suggestion was made to change the higher rate of income tax, the then Chancellor suggested bringing in a 45p rate. Might that rate have been suggested simply because it was felt it would maximise the tax take from it? Is that not one reason the hon. Gentleman is somewhat misguided in supporting this amendment?

[Owen Smith]

No, and I shall get into the technicalities in my response, if I may. When the 45p rate was initially mooted, the recession was not as profound as it subsequently became, justifying the shift to the 50p rate. If we look at the calculations underpinning the suggestions of the 45p and 50p rates, we find that they were informed by the use of a taxable income elasticity number of 0.35, which shows that an even higher rate, nearer 56%, might have been the optimal level for imposing the tax. We did not impose that rate, and—before the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) bobs up and down excitedly—I am not for a minute suggesting we ought to impose it. What I am saying is that there is uncertainty about the optimal rate, which is why it is so foolhardy for this Prime Minister and Chancellor to hang their credibility, and the claim of fiscal neutrality at the heart of their Budget, on economic calculus and economic modelling that is inevitably uncertain. That is the word used 32 times in the document, and I am going to use it some more in a moment. Unfortunately, it shows the truth for this Government.

[Mark Field]

I entirely appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s case applies to all sides—that there is much uncertainty about precisely the optimum rate of tax—but does he not accept that the 45p rate mooted three and a half years ago, which has now been put in place, was suggested simply because of the totemic effect of having to pay less than half one’s income at the highest rate of income tax? That totemic effect has a massive impact on both entrepreneurial spirit here and the international competitiveness that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) mentioned earlier.

[Owen Smith]

What I would accept is that the rate was raised to 50p in the end because we felt that there was still an overriding imperative to help through the period of recession the people in our economy who are the most vulnerable and to ask those who are the most fortunate in our economy to bear the broadest and biggest burden in order to allow that transfer to occur. That is the totemic rationale from our perspective. What is totemic for this Government, I fear, is the idea that the 50p rate is not approved of in the City or by the wealthiest people, but I do not believe that that provides a justification for making this decision—and nor does the Chancellor, which is why he eschewed the possibility of arguing from a political or ideological perspective to justify the cut to 45p. He argued that it was being done on the basis of evidence. In fact, that was the only Keynesian bit of logic in the Chancellor’s Budget speech. He effectively said, “The reason I no longer believe what I believed in 2009 and 2010 is that the facts have changed”, and he changed his view accordingly. In his view, based on the dodgy dossier, the rate was not bringing in the anticipated amount of money, which is what justified paring it back to 45p.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Broadly speaking, yes, I do, just as I supported making the Bank of England independent at a time when the Conservative party was opposed to doing so. However, my point remains that this House does not really vote properly through the expenditure of the Government; we do not, in any sense, analyse it line by line. We also do not match expenditure with the raising of taxes, unlike nearly every other legislature in the world. Most countries that have based their system on ours have now amended their processes and have better processes than we do for budgetary matters.

[Mark Field]

I entirely associate myself with the comments made, because the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I hope that most Government Members would also agree with what is being said. He might also point out that it is probably difficult, given that we have a deficit of £126 billion, to match that expenditure with tax, and going down that route might well lead to the significant reduction in the deficit that many Government Members very much support.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, if the Government want to take the country with them as they are taking through enormous cuts, it is important that they have a process in Parliament that people can understand. We simply do not have that, which is one reason why people are so angry about some of the cuts that are happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, I think she must have been reading my notes, which were very close to her face, because they say that it is completely uncertain how much this will cost. That is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said, at the nub of this. The Government have no idea how much this is going to cost them or how much would have been raised had we continued with the 50p rate of tax for another five years. That rate has not been in place long enough for us genuinely to see how it has affected people’s behaviour. Sometimes, when a new rate of tax is brought in it has a sudden impact that then evaporates two or three years later. There is absolutely no certainty and I say to Government Members, who I am sure are going to march loyally through the Lobby with the Exchequer Secretary this afternoon not because he is persuasive but because they believe in this—[Interruption.] He may be persuasive, but I do not think he is going to persuade me. I say to them that I think this will end up being a divisive measure.

[Mark Field]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend’s excellent point shows the gravity of the complexity that the Government are introducing. The figure is more than £100 million in administration costs to take away child benefit from 1.2 million families, either in total or in part.

[Mark Field]

Is my hon. Friend concerned that the estimate is likely to be somewhat conservative? Many people are employed as consultants, so they do not know from one year to another whether they will be earning between £50,000 and £60,000. Huge costs will be involved in trying to collect the money, and I dare say a massive amount will have to be written off year on year if the charge goes through as proposed.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a series of good points that are recognised in the HMRC document to which I have referred. It says that the definition of a partnership will be the same as the one in the Tax Credits Act 2002, yet we already know that the Act and the technical manual that flowed from it resulted in an enormous administrative burden for those trying to work out who formed a couple, or when partnerships began or ended. There is a great file of documentation on how to interpret the tax credit definitions of partnership when people are cohabiting, whether or not they are in civil partnerships. The complications of the child tax credit system have resulted in a lot of fraud.

If we apply new rules to a fresh group of taxpayers and for the first time introduce in the tax system definitions of couples and partnerships, we shall create an enormous administrative burden. The document notes that the overall impact will be that HMRC will have to spend approximately £100 million on staff resources. If we say that that is £20 million a year—although it is actually more—at an average cost of £30,000 for a member of staff, we should be taking on 650 extra staff just to administer the removal of child benefit from 1 million families who currently enjoy it.

That is not the end of the story. We also have the problem that 500,000 tax-paying families who previously have not had to make a tax return will now have to do so. That is not mentioned in the cost analysis, but it is a cost on the tax-paying public that will not be borne by the Exchequer.

The proposal is highly flawed, as the Treasury Committee has recognised. Paragraph 23 of its report on the Budget notes:

“We recognise that the Government needs to take difficult decisions to tackle the Budget deficit. Nonetheless, the Government’s latest proposals for reform of Child Benefit solve only one of the two main problems identified with its original policy. They add further complexity.”

That conclusion is based on evidence the Committee received from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and other experts. They all drew attention to the complexity involved, and some of them pointed out the odd distinction between the child benefit charge and the justification articulated by the Chancellor for removing the age allowance for the over-65s. During the Budget debates, the Chancellor told us that the main justification for removing the age allowance was to bring about simplification, yet that will be the reverse of the added complexity that he is introducing through the child benefit tax charge.

I hope we shall have a bit of give from the Government. If they want everybody on a higher income to make an additional and fair contribution to deficit reduction, will they tell us why their proposals are targeted on those on higher incomes with children, while those on higher incomes who do not have children are excluded? I hope the debate will give us the opportunity to get answers from the Government on those points.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

No, I am going to press on and address the question of the 50p rate. When I have done so, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will be free to intervene on me again.

Before discussing the 50p rate, I will refer briefly to clause 8, which will remove child benefit from the highest earners. We will withdraw child benefit from those in households earning more than £50,000 in a way that is gradual, so that only those earning more than £60,000 will lose all their child benefit. The measure will help to ensure that the burden of deficit reduction is fairly shared, and by implementing it as we propose, we will deal with the anomalies that have been highlighted.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I perhaps have more sympathy than many of my colleagues with the idea of the charity tax that is being introduced. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in regard to that tax and to child benefit, it is the Government’s intention to try to restore those benefits once the deficit has been paid down and we no longer have to service a debt of £126 billion a year?

[Danny Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support, but I cannot confirm that intention at this stage. We have a major ongoing problem with the sustainability of our public finances. We set out in the spending review last year, and reaffirmed in this year’s Budget documentation, the need for further spending—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I want to make a brief contribution to this important debate. The phrase that comes to mind is “something will turn up”. It is one of the classic stratagems of last resort in politics and perhaps life in general. I suspect that the Treasury’s handling of the UK’s economy owes rather more than it might be willing to admit to the Mr Micawber principle. After all, time often alleviates and sometimes even eliminates what seem like intractably difficult problems. In stark contrast to the first Thatcher Government, who front-loaded much of the economic pain, the modern-day Treasury, while espousing a tough austerity message, has adopted a more pragmatic, steady-as-she-goes path.

Despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), we must get one thing straight: there is zero veracity in Labour’s contention that the Government are cutting too far, too fast. In the past 12 months, the UK Government’s current spending has totalled some £613.5 billion—the highest figure in history. The Government are still borrowing, even this year, £1 in every £5 that they spend. However, more than half the deficit reduction was predicated on annual compound growth through the Parliament of 2.7% to 2.9%, and it is clear that, for the first half of the Parliament, we shall struggle to achieve growth of even one third of that figure.

Rather than respond to that deteriorating situation by imposing more savings, we have taken the path of ever more debt, courtesy of the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme. In my view, the real purpose and impact of the UK’s central bank intervention has not been to ease the path of investment borrowing for small business, which is perhaps what it should be. Instead, it has mopped up the substantial proportion of gilts that are being issued. That is where the Mr Micawber principle particularly comes into play. The Bank of England’s actions will not be sustainable in the longer term without a very real risk of inflation. I suspect that global conditions in the years ahead may make it much more difficult to finance our current levels of deficit. That is one reason why we need to get the deficit down as quickly as we can.

Before the Budget, I firmly believed that our focus should rest on some radical supply-side reform to ensure that we get the growth that we need. That would apply partly to the tax system, but also to employment legislation, with forensic attention paid to the impact of high marginal rates of income tax and the disincentives that have crept into the system as a result of both the poverty trap for the low paid and the removal of reliefs for higher rate payers.

I was pleased that a small part of my desire was realised: some progress has obviously been made on taking people out of tax entirely through the increase in the threshold for the basic rate of income tax and the reduction in the top rate tax from 50% to 45%, which is particularly important for entrepreneurs.

I was also personally delighted that, after three years of campaigning alongside the local animation industry in my constituency, the Chancellor announced the Government’s intention to introduce a tax credit for televised animation and video games. I congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on securing a bright future in the UK for Peppa Pig, Olive the Ostrich and their animated brethren. Finally, we have the level playing field that our creative industries deserve, and the tax credit will help raise the quality of children’s television and retain valuable intellectual property in this country. That is the key reason why I agreed to lead the parliamentary charge on the matter. It is also fantastic news for the vibrant sector in my central London constituency and beyond.

However, rather less progress has been made on arguably the more urgent and important supply-side reform: legislation on employment rights. Once more, the glad, confident morning of June 2010’s Budget has given way to starker reality. It is worth recalling that, at that point, the increasingly discredited Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that unemployment would peak in 2010-11. We now know that it is likely to rise further in the next two years and remain stubbornly high for the foreseeable future. Yet the UK continues to gold-plate continental employment legislation and grant ever more generous paternity and maternity rights. Little wonder that employers are so reluctant to take on more staff.

I disagree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Leeds West about the position in the US. It is instructive to witness how the US has shown signs of turning the economic corner. In simple terms, it is easier to hire, but also to fire staff there. That allows flexibility and supports a rapid readjustment economically.

[Julian Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not just apply to the US? Recently, Italy and Germany have exempted their small and medium-sized firms from many of the burdens of employment law.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in respect of the German model for the micro-sized businesses that are in the growth phase. There is no doubt in my mind that our recovery phase will commence only when we are able to have that sort of readjustment.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

We heard those arguments in the 1980s and they have been looked at many times. Does the hon. Gentleman not know that there is no connection whatever between economic growth, and the economic competence of a country, and employment protection?

[Mark Field]

I am making a comparison over the limited phase of the past two or three years. Why have we seen the recovery in the USA, to which I referred, and recovery and economic stability in Germany? Given the fiscal stimulus, there is not all that much between the countries, but those employment rights measures have the impact of allowing recovery among small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Katy Clark]

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the USA has pursued different economic policies from the UK? It has not pursued the policies of austerity that the Government and other countries in Europe have pursued. There is no connection between attempts to restrict trade union and employment rights and growth.

[Mark Field]

The important thing that the hon. Lady needs to recognise is that there is a distinction, as I said in the early part of my speech, between the rhetoric and the reality of austerity. We have not really had much in the way of fiscal tightening in this country. We are still borrowing and living miles beyond our means—this is a lesson, I am afraid, for the entire political class—and we will face a huge problem. We continue to pass that burden on to our children and grandchildren, not in any meaningful way for investment, but for today’s consumption, which is not sustainable.

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think I agree with hon. Gentleman on that point. As I understand it, he is saying that he agrees with the point made earlier in the year by—I believe—Standard & Poor’s, which said that austerity by itself does not work and can become self-defeating if it leads to higher unemployment, slower growth, and therefore to higher spending, fewer taxes, and therefore higher deficits. Is that his point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

My point was along these lines. One difficulty occurs if all our trading nations are going through austerity; austerity can be done only by one country in such a group. We need to focus attention on growth. Indeed, the last words of a speech I made in the House almost two years ago, after the June 2010 Budget, were that we have talked about and made the right case for austerity, but we needed attention on growth—I fear that there has been too little.

I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds West in her analysis and on trying to assist small and medium-sized enterprises by allowing them to take on extra employees over the next two tax years without paying further national insurance. Better still, we could extend a national insurance holiday to all employees under the age of 25. That opportunity was missed both in the Budget and in the Bill.

I wish to touch on three specific concerns that I strongly hope will be dealt with in Committee in the weeks ahead. I confess that I am a little uneasy at the prospect of the general anti-avoidance provisions and powers that are heralded in the Bill and to which the Chief Secretary referred. Senior coalition Ministers interchange the terms “avoidance” and “evasion” in a rather casual way, which should be of concern to more than merely the tax advisory community. Individuals and businesses in a free society are, and should be, entitled to organise their affairs in such a way as to minimise their tax liability. I have no problem with that.

Although I sympathise with the Treasury, which is forced virtually continuously to update its rules and regulations, any general powers on avoidance should keep retrospection to an absolute minimum, and should be used only in extreme cases of what is regarded as so-called aggressive anti-avoidance. Moreover, it is surely incumbent on the Treasury, if it moves in that direction, to ensure a comprehensive pre-clearance regime to allow companies and their advisers to road-test their proposed taxation schemes with senior HMRC officials.

I appreciate that banks have few friends—I represent the City of London and am perhaps one of the few left—but the treatment meted out by the Treasury to Barclays bank in February set a very unfortunate precedent, not least because in recent weeks the Treasury has sought to lecture the Indian Government on the undesirability of retrospective tax. Barclays bank had sought and obtained clearance for its £500 million tax minimisation scheme. It was overturned in a blaze of publicity. If we are to raise the substantial levels of taxation that UK Governments of all stripes need, given the electorate’s addiction to public spending, we should be wary of anti-business rhetoric, which will give further encouragement to globally mobile institutions wishing to leave these shores. Being open for business depends on certainty in commercial practice, not simply verbal assurances.

[Julian Smith]

Will my hon. Friend update the House on what contribution the financial sector makes to the tax take of UK plc?

[Mark Field]

I am not sure I can, to be honest, but suffice it to say it is a significant amount. I can appreciate, though, that in these difficult times it is hard to make the case for the huge bonuses in the banking sector, other than to say that it is a globally competitive industry. Financial services will be a big industry going forward. Growth in Asia is adding 20 million or 25 million people a year to the ranks of the global middle class in India, China and South Korea. These will be the customers and consumers, not least because of the cultural reasons for saving, of the financial services industry in the future. That is one reason, in the midst of trying to rebalance our economy, as the Chief Secretary mentioned, we should not lose sight of our global competitive advantage. In the financial services industry, in particular, our global advantage is looked upon jealously in France, Germany and other European countries. They often feel that some of the anti-banking rhetoric coming through will be entirely self-defeating.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Field]

If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I would like to make some progress because others want to get in.

The provisions in clause 8 on the high-income child benefit change to income tax will doubtless be the subject of extensive controversy. In spite of the misgivings I have expressed since the scheme was proposed in October 2010—in particular, that it seems to act as a penalty on aspiration and families in which one parent stays at home to rear children—I accept the overriding need to reduce the vast fiscal deficit. However, the tapering of the change to income tax for those earning between £50,000 and £60,000 a year will result in marginal tax rates of 65% for families with three or more children. Conservatives such as me believe in promoting incentives, but it is difficult to reconcile the proposition that those earning more than £150,000 are deemed to require a highest marginal rate of 45%—a proposition that, I hasten to add, I fully support—with the proposal that earners with several children at the level affected by clause 8 must apparently settle for paying marginal rates of up to 20 percentage points higher. I fear that the controversy in middle Britain about these child benefit changes will continue to resonate strongly in the months ahead.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I think that my hon. Friend and I share similar views on this. Does he accept that if, for example, we were to take all people earning more than £60,000, regardless of whether they have children, and charge them £1,000 a year, the yield would be £2 billion in 2013-14—far more than the yield from this complicated tax targeted at those with children rather than those without them?

[Mark Field]

I worry that too much of this tinkering will be counter-productive in any event and that the tapering of the child benefit system will be hugely expensive. Many people do not know whether they will earn between £50,000 and £60,000. They might work on a consultancy basis or spend a few months a year unemployed or travelling. Trying to unravel all that will be incredibly difficult.

I wish to make a few provisional passing comments on clauses 211 to 213 and 224 relating to the Chancellor’s decision to impose a 15% stamp duty land tax on acquisitions of £2 million and residential properties by non-natural persons—in other words, companies. Although I support the essence of the proposal, it might have the unintended consequence of stalling development, particularly in central London. I appreciate that high-end property developers might not necessarily be seen as deserving of particular Government acknowledgement, but there is no doubt that the property development industry in and around central London generates significant tax revenues and creates jobs. Not only are the profits taxable here but significant amounts of irrecoverable VAT are often incurred on redevelopment projects. Developers will generate SDLT revenue by buying and reselling redeveloped properties.

In the Budget press release, it was noted that the 15% SDLT charge would not apply to developers because they tended to use companies for limited liability rather than tax avoidance reasons, but when the draft legislation was published, the relief for developers was limited to bona fide developers who had been carrying on a residential property development business for at least two years. The two-year requirement may seem eminently sensible as a means of ensuring that short-life development companies are not established by individuals who ultimately wish simply to use the property in question. Nevertheless, I fear that the qualifying period will discriminate against new property development businesses, which cannot show the requisite track record. Indeed, all new entrants into the market are likely to be priced out because their acquisition costs have suddenly become 8% higher than those of their competitors. We therefore risk creating an uneven market—indeed, a market against newcomers.

The 15% charge is also likely to be an issue for experienced developers. The scarcity of bank finance for development properties at the moment means that much of the finance for high-end residential property development is coming from equity investors, who are bridging the significant funding gap that now exists. The requirements of equity investors will often mean that stand-alone special purpose vehicles are established for individual projects, so once again, the statutory test will not be met. If HMRC wants to consider an alternative policing arrangement and seeks to avoid creating a dual market, it might consider imposing a second charge—either another 7% or the balance of the 15%—if the property is used before being sold on by a developer with SDLT. Alternatively, there could be a time-based charge, so that if the property has not been sold after, say, three years, the second charge comes into play.

It is perhaps understandable that this afternoon I have dwelt on some of my concerns about the Bill. Nevertheless, I appreciate the acutely troubled state of the public finances. The Chief Secretary was absolutely right when he said that it was important that we should not pass on the costs of this generation’s excessive consumption to our children and grandchildren. I therefore reiterate my support for the deficit reduction plan that the coalition set out almost two years ago. I trust that the Bill will progress swiftly and smoothly to the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend is precisely right. I worked in industry on the shop floor prior to the introduction of health and safety legislation. On another occasion—this is not the appropriate time—I might, if I get the opportunity, describe the conditions in which people worked in a lot of factories in those times. Often they were almost Dickensian.

[Mark Field]

No one is suggesting that we should try to encourage some sort of sweatshop regime; but equally, during these difficult economic times, there is a tendency for businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—to batten down the hatches. We want to encourage them to take the risk—“Yes, let’s take on an extra employee. Maybe some more business is coming through”; “Okay, but will we be able to expand in three or six months’ time?”; “Let’s try and take employees on.” The difficulty for small and medium-sized enterprises is not the idea of employment rights, but that the difficulties and costs of taking on new employees—particularly young employees—become so overwhelming that there is a massive disincentive so to do.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having rebalanced his view slightly, but I still think that he is wrong. When I talk to employers about the difficulties they have in recruiting, they tell me that they have two priorities, particularly in regard to young people. The first is that the young people should have the right skill set and should be capable of doing the job without needing too much training from the employer. The second, which is harder to pin down, is about attitude. Employers are looking for people who are disciplined enough to turn up at the right time and not to take days off on a whim. Such considerations come ahead of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has described.

I want to talk briefly about the cumulative effect that the measures in the Budget will have on the people in Knowsley whom I represent. I also want to cover the proposals for minimum unit pricing for alcohol, as one of the major employers in my constituency will be affected by them. I have also received quite a lot of correspondence from individual constituents on that matter.

I am concerned about the impact that the working tax credit changes will have on my constituents, in conjunction with the other changes to the benefit system that are already taking place. To qualify for working tax credit, couples with children will now have to work at least 24 hours a week between them, instead of 16, with one of the couple working at least 16 hours a week. There are exceptions for people with a disability or incapacity. There is also an issue with the backdating of the entitlement to tax credit. It will now be one month, instead of three months. A further concern is that the main elements of the tax credit have been frozen for 2012-13.

I am unable to give the House any statistics to show how those changes will directly affect my constituents, but it is clear that changes to tax credits impact most heavily—indeed, entirely—on those on low incomes. That is another contrast between the situation experienced by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and me. It is estimated that, nationally, 212,000 working couples with children who earn less than £17,000 a year will lose all their working tax credit. Unless those people are able to find someone who will employ them for an extra eight hours a week, that could equate to a loss of £3,870 a year. That will be a substantial loss for the many families in my constituency who will be affected by the change. We must also take into account other things that have been going on. Low-income families are already disproportionately affected by rising fuel costs and rising food bills, for example, and these changes will only add to those pressures.

Child benefit has been frozen for another two years, until April 2014. Before the Budget, there was a lot of negative publicity about the plans to withdraw child benefit from families with a higher-rate taxpayer in the household. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to that in his speech. In the Budget, however, the Chancellor backtracked a little. From January 2013 there will be no loss of child benefit until at least one parent earns £50,000, after which the benefit will be gradually reclaimed through increasing the take up to £60,000. Beyond that, people stop getting the benefit at all. That will be a very complex system to administer, and my major concern is how it will affect people in my constituency. If the benefit had been raised in line with inflation, a couple with one child would have received £88 a year more in child benefit or £145 a year for two children in 2012-13, but now they will simply not get that.

The latest Department for Work and Pensions figures show that in Knowsley 21,185 families were in receipt of child benefit, with 35,725 children between them. That is a substantial number of people who will be adversely affected by these changes in my constituency alone. It is inevitable that I should comment on that, as it is totally unacceptable for those families. I fear that one consequence will be—perversely perhaps, or even unintentionally—that some families that manage to convince the Jobcentre Plus people that they are genuinely unemployed, might decide that they will be better off if they are not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a lot to be said for simplification and stopping the churning effect. The late Lord Joseph was a great campaigner on these issues, and other Conservatives in the past have campaigned to simplify the tax system, which is the avowed intent of this Government. I also think it right to recognise in the tax system that when people have equivalent incomes, those with children have higher costs than those without children. If we are to recognise families in the tax system, one way is to have what used to be a child allowance, which is now incorporated into the child benefit.

If parents have higher costs, why should they start to pay tax at the same level of income as somebody who is not a parent and does not have those higher costs? That is where I disagree with the Government on this policy, which I do not think is fair or consistent. When it has been justified by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Exchequer Secretary, they have argued that it is wrong that people who earn £20,000 or £30,000 a year pay for the child benefit of people like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The answer to that is that neither my hon. Friend nor other people are being subsidised in that way by other taxpayers, because, as the Exchequer Secretary confirmed in a written answer to me just before the recess, somebody would have to have 10 children and be on the threshold of higher-rate tax before they started to receive more child benefit than they were paying out in tax. The Government deploy a specious argument when they say that someone on £20,000 or £30,000 a year is paying for my hon. Friend’s child benefit.

[Mark Field]

I think my hon. Friend and I agree that one of the most important tasks for any Government is to get the huge deficit down. One of the single biggest costs is the cost of welfare, which this year, for the very first time, will go through an aggregate £200 billion mark. Does he not accept that reconsidering the universality of certain benefits would be a sensible way to get the deficit down? Although I do not disagree with elements of what he has said about the workings of clause 8, consideration of removing universality from relatively well-off people, not just for this benefit but for others, would be a desirable way forward.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said at a press conference organised by the Child Poverty Action Group, there is a strong intellectual case for saying that we should revisit universal benefits. What is happening here, however, is that one particular universal benefit—child benefit—is under attack whereas others are not. Will we say next that if somebody with wealthy parents presents themselves at a hospital, their parents should have to pay a charge? Are we going to start saying that free dental treatment for children should not be available to the children of better-off families? Are we going to remove a whole load of other universal benefits? If we are thinking of going down that route, we should have a big public discussion and a public debate. We should put all the universal benefits into the melting pot and decide whether we think there would be a big benefit if the number of universal benefits were reduced or eliminated and whether, as a result, the overall levels of tax could be reduced.

[Mark Field]

I know that my hon. Friend is a very brave man and I recall that Christchurch is the constituency with the largest number of pensioners. Does he think that the universal benefits of the television licence allowance and the winter fuel allowance should not necessarily go to the wealthiest of his pensioner constituents?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to hide behind the manifesto commitments made by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister. I was going to refer later to some of the background, but, prompted by that intervention, I will perhaps say the following. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said:

“I want the next Government to be the most family friendly Government we’ve ever had in this country”.

On 5 March 2010, he told a public meeting in Bolton that he would not change child benefit. On 6 October 2009, six months or so earlier, the then shadow Chancellor, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the Conservative party conference:

“We will preserve child benefit”.

I certainly went into the general election thinking that we would preserve child benefit as part of the universal benefit system in the same way as we would preserve the universal benefits that are applicable to so many of my constituents, as my hon. Friend points out.

My belief was reinforced on 22 June 2010, when the Chancellor said in his Budget speech in this House that

“we have decided to freeze child benefit for the next three years. This is a tough decision, but I believe that it strikes the right balance between keeping intact this popular universal benefit, while ensuring that everyone across the income scale makes a contribution to helping our country reduce its debts.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 173.]

At that stage, everybody thought that that was the end of it. We would retain child benefit, but freeze it for three years, The yield to the Exchequer of freezing child benefit in 2013-14 is no less than £1 billion. Looking back, I think that that was also the point at which the Chancellor should have said that he was going to freeze the age-related allowances. If that had been presented in the same context, with those in receipt of child benefit having their benefit frozen at the same time as those in receipt of age-related allowances had theirs frozen, I do not think that there would have been a row about it as there has been this time.

That is the background, so how were we able to end up with the Government effectively launching an attack on hard-working families with children? The Government have got themselves into a mess because they have not complied with their own policy of properly discussing the issues in advance of introducing measures. An interesting document, “Tax policy making: a new approach”, was produced immediately after the election. It was issued by the Treasury in June 2010 and in the preface, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary said:

“I want a new approach to tax policy making; a more considered approach. Consultation on”

tax

“design and scrutiny of draft legislative proposals should be the cornerstones of this approach.”

Banking (Responsibility and Reform)

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I want to make a little more progress.

We need a more diverse and competitive banking system that is rooted in our communities and that better serves the financing needs of our businesses, as the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations have argued. We need better developed equity finance, too, which is why we are exploring the possibility of creating in the UK something akin to the US Government’s small business investment company programme. That programme financed the likes of Apple and Intel in their early stages. We are also considering plans to set up a British investment bank that could step in if the market failed to provide for our entrepreneurs.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

We all appreciate that this banking crisis has gone on considerably longer than we envisaged. In 2008, we probably all thought that we would have divested ourselves of our huge stake in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group by now. I therefore fully support the idea of a structure for bonuses that would come into play only when we have divested ourselves of our stake in those two banks. However, I get the impression from all that the hon. Gentleman has said that he draws no distinction between those two banks, in which we have large holdings, and the rest of the banking sector. Am I correct in that assumption?

[Mr Umunna]

No; partly because, whether we like it or not, the way in which the public regard RBS and Lloyds is different from the way in which they regard, say, Barclays or other banking groups, simply because of the public stake in them. That is the issue that crept up on members of the RBS board over the past couple of weeks. For all that was said about the terms on which the different executives and employees were joining RBS, they were essentially joining an institution that the public have very much come to regard as a public entity.

[Mark Field]

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore working towards putting in place a policy that would be more onerous for RBS and Lloyds Banking Group, in which the public have a large stake, than for the rest of the banking system? Does he feel that that would be a sensible way to go forward?

[Mr Umunna]

That is not actually what we are arguing for. We have said, given that the Government have been lecturing shareholders on being more active in relation to their shareholdings, that the Government should of course take a more active approach to those banks in which we have a stake. As has been pointed out, however, the sector as a whole needs a change in its culture; that applies across the board.

Right now, we need the Government to make good on their promise to implement credit easing, to relieve the credit squeeze on businesses. That plan was announced to great fanfare more than four months ago, but nothing has happened. I am glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) will be responding to this debate. Perhaps he can tell us what has become of the scheme. The lack of speed with which the Government have proceeded with it is in marked contrast to the actions of the German and US Governments, for example. In Germany, KFW doubled the amount of small business finance available very quickly over the past couple of years through its lending programmes.

Some people suggest that if we do all these things, wealthy bankers will simply move abroad. We are for ever being held to ransom by that threat. It is notable, however, that many of those who put that argument benefit from the status quo. They have been making the argument for a number of years, but they are still here. They tend to ignore the fact that it is the banks’ shareholders—not just politicians and society at large—who are calling for reform. Shareholders such as Jupiter, F&C Asset Management and Legal & General have all reportedly told the banks to be sensitive to the popular mood, and to moderate pay rises to match sharp falls in shareholder returns. The Association of British Insurers is reportedly meeting all the banks at the moment, including Barclays. Those people also ignore the fact that bankers and executives in other countries are being required to change their ways. For example, our banks’ US rivals are cutting bonuses by up to 30% at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Project Merlin set lending targets for banks. At the point of the third quarter, the targets for lending to all business had been achieved and those for lending to small and medium-sized enterprises had just been missed. Project Merlin therefore has certainly achieved in respect of its goal of getting credit flowing to the economy. I agree that businesses face challenges in borrowing money. They need to have a viable plan, and we need to work more closely with businesses to ensure that the support is in place to enable them to make successful applications for bank funding.

[Mark Field]

We have a very large holding in RBS and we clearly will not be divesting ourselves of much of that holding for probably the next 10 years or so. What thought has the Minister given to using RBS, with its expertise and huge distribution network, as a mechanism for credit easing? I am sure that all Members hear from business people that these problems are not going to be solved unless we ensure that our SMEs have access to the capital that they so desperately need.

[Mr Hoban]

The national loan guarantee scheme will be open to all banks, including RBS, Lloyds, Barclays and HSBC, and we are currently taking that work forward.

Under the last Government, we witnessed the growth of the bonus culture, where bonuses could be paid in cash, in one year, and were never clawed back in the event of failure. We are changing that culture. Bonuses under the Financial Services Authority code are paid out over at least three years, in shares, not just cash, and failure can be punished by clawing back bonuses, and at both RBS and Lloyds cash bonuses will again be limited to £2,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Well, one thing is for certain: I was not designing the contracts that gave the big payouts.

It is time that the banking sector demonstrated leadership, and the coming bonus round is another chance for it to demonstrate leadership on pay. As we empower shareholders to drive remuneration policy, the banking sector has to be at the vanguard of the debate on responsible executive pay.

[Mark Field]

The Minister is being admirably forward-looking in his speech by trying to present where we should go for the future rather than focusing too much on some of the battles of the past. One of the biggest concerns in this area is about institutional shareholders who have large stakes in FTSE 250 companies and in our banks. How are we going to embolden them to use the notional power they have as shareholders? Many of them have 5%, 6% or 7% shareholdings and could do something. What is going to ensure that there is a culture of change such that they become shareholder activists rather than shareholders who sit on their hands and their dividends year on year?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The reforms outlined by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary ensure that shareholders have the information they need to act. We are also giving them the power to vote and their votes will have a binding impact on future pay plans. The pervading culture today and the sense of concern in the wider economy mean that institutional shareholders need to play their part by looking after the interests of the people who invest in their funds—the people whose pensions are dependent on good returns from their investments. Those shareholders owe an obligation to their customers to exercise their rights to determine the pay policies of boards. We need to focus on that in coming years. My predecessor, Lord Myners, talked about it a great deal. Our reforms have provided the tools and we must ensure that we use them to hold institutional shareholders to account.

Financial Services Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. Surely the issue is the clarity of the relationship between the Governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the confusion in the tripartite system. That would not prevent, and should not prevent, any Governor worth his salt from at least making it clear that there were other views within the Bank, albeit that it was his judgment in the advice to the Chancellor. That gets away from some of the confusion about whether we are looking to sweep away an integral part of the tripartite system.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. This is all about the Governor’s responsibility to do his or her job in managing the Bank, and about the Bank coming to a collective view. The job of the Chancellor of the day is to manage the relationship with the Governor. For all the virtues of the tripartite system that the shadow Chancellor seems to be extolling, I understand that those at the principal level in the tripartite system did not meet for 10 years; perhaps he can correct me, as he was there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

To be frank, I still regard too much of this legislation as deficient, and I shall touch on some specific concerns, but it would be remiss not to give the Treasury significant credit for some of the work it has done. The extensive and broadly constructive pre-legislative consultation by the Joint Committee is a positive step. The outstanding and ongoing contribution of the Treasury Committee will help to focus the Government’s mind on some of the key institutional pitfalls. There is also an increasing recognition by the Treasury that this is an area of public policy where political judgments will need to be made, and that ultimately the buck must stop with it, not with the Bank of England, however good a Governor we may have.

My general dissatisfaction relates first and foremost to the inevitable guillotine in this House, which means that the high-level sophisticated scrutiny will have to come from the other place, and I fear that that shows our House in a poor light. It is not that we lack collective experience in this crucial field, but the wish of Governments, throughout my 11 years in the House, to get legislation through by whipped votes means that we continue to fail to hold the Executive to account, particularly on such important pieces of legislation.

This is probably the only area where I have some sympathy with the shadow Chancellor. The genesis of the Bill was perhaps a rather simplistic political analysis surrounding the financial collapse of 2007-08. It was not really the tripartite system of regulation that was at the heart of those concerns, but an old-fashioned debt and credit bubble and the global imbalance between the east and the west. It is important that we recognise that, because the result was not simply the failing of banks, bankers and Labour politicians; the simplistic analysis also fails to answer the core question that has dogged regulators ever since the financial crisis began: “When the crash came, who was in charge?” The risk is that we will replace an unsatisfactory tripartite system with a potentially even more complex four-way system. I think that there is a risk that that will come to pass, although I do not buy into the shadow Chancellor’s entire analysis. In truth, the new FCA will have too few people of the requisite expertise and sound judgment. Unsurprisingly, it remains very unloved and unrespected by too many professionals in the City, and I am afraid that that matters, given the important role that it will have.

Let me touch on some of the more substantial political issues that the press have not focused very much on. There is an overall concern about how prescriptive the new regime will be, and to what extent the Bill will recalibrate things in a way that will have unintended and potentially damaging consequences for the industry, the UK and the consumer. I will give a few examples. On the warning notice publicity, the Bill will change the current position whereby enforcement action becomes public only at the end of the process, after the firm has decided whether to go to tribunal, and before that stage has had two opportunities to make representations. The new approach means that there will be negative publicity at the stage of the warning notice—the first notice—and the firm will have no right to make representations before that. The reality is that, essentially, the Daily Mail test means that all the damage to the firm’s reputation will be done before any due process has been gone through. The argument in favour of the change is that this is similar to a criminal case, but that misses the important difference between the cases, and represents a worrying trend in the thinking, to the effect that everyone in the industry is somehow a would-be criminal.

[Mark Garnier]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Field]

I am afraid that I will not.

Product regulation and financial promotion powers are another issue. There are powers to intervene earlier in the product life cycle and ban financial promotions. There is an argument that the FSA already has the power to do this. The big political point is the balance between market and regulatory failure. All the debate has been about how the powers are needed to prevent market failure and how the regulator will be far more involved in product design and in the business. It is difficult to argue with the concept, but the position that there is no moral hazard in going down this route is arguably naive, and fails to recognise that the regulators never have perfect vision.

The cost of regulation is in many ways the dog that has not barked. There is nothing in the Bill to apply more financial discipline to either the PRA or the FCA, so the cost-benefit analysis does not apply to the rules that they have in place. We must also ask how the new regulators will work together. The Bill sets out certain principles for the memorandum of understanding between the PRA and the FCA, which is perhaps all that can be expected. However, that leaves on trust a lot of the detail of how the new organisations will work together. That is a key practical issue for firms if this is not to lead to new and inconsistent regulation.

One good example relates to threshold conditions. The Bill provides the PRA and the FCA with the power to make threshold condition codes, which will elaborate on the conditions and how they will apply to different classes of firm. Those codes will be binding. What will happen if the two regulators take inconsistent approaches on, for example, explaining what they mean by the suitability condition? The last thing anyone wants is the development of an industry engaged in arbitrage between the two inconsistent approaches to regulation for different parts of the industry. That is a particular worry for dual- regulated firms, and firms left under the FCA, such as fund managers, are concerned that they could suffer from more heavy-handed regulation, rather than the more senatorial style that it is assumed the PRA will adopt.

Will there be enough of the secondary framework to be able to consider the new structure properly? That is a general question, and one example is whether investment firms are within the PRA’s scope. Firms do not yet know, and things keep changing. For example, the Government agree that the risks posed by investment firms and the concerns arising from last autumn’s MF Global failure should continue to be subject to scrutiny by the authorities, which might change the boundary. The point about MF Global is that it did not take proprietary positions, and so would have fallen on the FCA side. The argument is that the organisation has caused great systemic problems, and so surely should have been regulated by the PRA.

That question has now been partly—but only partly— addressed, through the draft designation order published on the Treasury’s website, setting out the criteria that the PRA will apply when considering whether it should designate individual firms as “dealing in investments as principal” for PRA regulation. Has enough thought been given to that issue, however? There is a parallel debate about large hedge fund managers, who deal only as agents, and therefore stay on the FCA side, yet arguably pose a systemic risk themselves. It is hard to look at the new framework in the round until all such details are sorted out.

I shall conclude soon, because I appreciate that other Members have more to say. Indeed, there is so much more that I could say myself. One issue that has been widely discussed is the competition objective, which was especially well dealt with in the Joint Committee’s report. The point often missed is that the whole discussion is about competition within the market, and whether that itself should be an objective or principle to which the FCA ought to be compelled to have regard. It is not about the more fundamental issue of the competitiveness of the UK as a financial services centre, important though that is. That says something about the new approach to the industry.

I fear that we risk throwing the out baby with the bathwater. Why should the UK not have regard to the competitiveness of one of its most important industries, subject to the other important goals of market stability and consumer protection? Rebalancing the economy is all well and good, but it should not mean undermining the vital importance of the City and of financial services to the UK as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I congratulate hon. Members who have taken part in the debate this evening, particularly those who served so diligently on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and on the Treasury Select Committee, many of whom are in warmer foreign climes at present. I thank in particular the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) for chairing the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), who contributed to the debates, for their work.

My hon. Friends have spoken on a number of topics this evening, but it would be invidious in the short time left for Front Benchers—only 10 minutes each—to try to discuss them in more detail. But do not worry Mr Speaker, because we will have about 10 hours in every one of the four weeks when we consider this Bill in Committee, so we can elaborate on each other’s comments then. Let me just note that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) rightly spoke about the need for reforms to high-cost credit and that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spoke about the collapse of Arch Cru and the need for lessons to be learned, and made a reasonable call for a Treasury inquiry into those matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) emphasised the need for more action on financial education and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about the current difficulties in the banking sector, particularly with high executive pay. Also, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) spoke about the importance of addressing financial exclusion and access to basic bank account services.

The Bill is a significant piece of legislation and we support the moves to a prudential regulatory approach with improved systemic oversight, but there are serious misgivings about the proliferation of agencies and the confused responsibilities in the Bill, which are far from ideal. As we have heard, we are moving from a tripartite system to a quartet system, and the acronyms abound. That might work, but we need clear lines of accountability. That was the point that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor was making. There are issues with complexity, and risks associated with putting all our hopes on placing regulation in the hands of the Bank of England. The formation of the Financial Policy Committee is sensible, but we need to ensure that it has the right composition, with fewer Bank of England officials in its membership, and that appointments reflect the balance across the economy.

We have touched on a number of issues relating to the economy, such as responsibility and long-termism, and we have heard about consumers of financial services, many of whom are, after all, constituents of ours, for whom we have an obligation to speak. There will undoubtedly be a debate about the objectives of the Financial Conduct Authority and whether they are sufficiently focused on the fairness, transparency and efficiency we need in the system. There is some confusion in the Bill regarding the FCA’s powers when it issues a warning notice, and the extent to which such notices will be published. Will it be known to consumers or will there be a nod and a wink, with notices going privately to the companies concerned? Is that the right balance? I am not entirely sure that that works.

We have to do a lot more to emphasise other consumer protection matters. We must surely grasp the nettle and take this opportunity to do what we can to improve financial education in all our schools up and down the country. We must also make sure that the information available to customers more generally is accessible, intelligible, clear and understandable so that we can try to do something about the asymmetry of information that hon. Members have discussed.

My hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for Foyle suggested that a fiduciary duty of care should be placed on providers of financial services, and we think that there are compelling arguments in favour of such a change, particularly as some important points about pensions and charges need to be brought out in the debate, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow continued her campaign to introduce a time limit and a limit on high charges for credit, particularly for the vulnerable in our constituencies. I agree that it is time to ensure that the FCA has powers to take action in that regard and on fee charging, debt management plans and further safeguards for depositors.

When it comes to responsibility and the long-term changes that are needed to ensure that financial services address the real economy as well as the needs of consumers and constituents, it is important that we learn the lessons of the past. Therefore, we must look at the FSA’s report on RBS and take action in the Bill to end the bias in advisory fee structures in takeovers. We must take the opportunity to reform acquisition and merger rules, as the FSA has recommended. To what extent can we use the opportunity presented by the Bill to enhance the role of the Financial Reporting Council, and possibly the FCA, to support sound stewardship and shareholder accountability and to improve the corporate governance that many hon. Members have talked about, never mind the reforms that are so overdue to executive pay, the bonus culture and the remuneration committees that have been so much in the news in recent days? It is also important to take the opportunity to do more to support a diverse financial services sector, supporting mutuals and building societies, many of which do not fit into the neat capital requirements and plc structures imposed on them by current regulatory arrangements. Those are some of the changes that we will want to introduce in Committee.

It would be wrong not to take this opportunity to talk about one of the fundamental vacuums in the Bill: the insufficient attention to jobs, growth and finding ways to support our economy. The action taken by the Financial Policy Committee and the Bank of England will undoubtedly have a big impact on the availability of credit, not least because the Government have signally failed to do anything to encourage bank lending: Project Merlin has already fallen by the wayside and credit easing has still not commenced. The FPC has the objective of protecting and enhancing stability, but we believe that it should also be guided by the objective of promoting employment and the long-term growth prospects of the economy. That is something that the CBI has argued for, and it happens in similar situations elsewhere around the world.

Perhaps the Government’s difficulties stem from their partisan design of these structures when the Chancellor was in opposition. As we heard in his speech, the Government have tried to tell a domestic political narrative that pins the failures of the credit crunch solely on the previous Administration, and suggest that it is something that happened only in this country. In his revisionist attempt to re-write history, not even once did he mention the problems in other countries, or the fact that there was a global financial crisis. He suggested that what happened, happened only here in Britain—as if the then Prime Minister got on a plane and caused all the problems in America, Spain, Germany and elsewhere, as well as in the UK. The Chancellor’s analysis of the history of the credit crunch is lacking, to say the least. It would have been better if he had redesigned regulation in a way that recognised the casino culture of the global banking sector at the time of the financial crisis.

We are faced with a Bill that contains a number of problems, but ones that we hope can be amended and improved. The regulatory structure fails to sit adequately with the international and European regulatory environments. The EU’s supervisory bodies are split thematically to deal with banking, pensions and insurance, rather than mirroring the conduct and prudential arrangements set out in the Bill. Given that the EU drives the vast bulk of the regulatory agenda that will be able to overrule the domestic regulators that we are debating, it is important that the Government state clearly how they will ensure that our voice is not marginalised in those regulatory environments—if, indeed, it is possible to be even more out in the cold than the Chancellor is at present.

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Banking Commission Report

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We are confident that the sale proposed by Lloyds of 600 branches to the Co-op will create a sufficiently strong challenger bank because it is to an existing institution rather than a new institution. Obviously, that sale is subject to commercial negotiations and the deal is not yet done, but we think that it meets the conditions set out in the Vickers report. We have kept in close personal contact with John Vickers throughout this process.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The Chancellor has acknowledged that the Vickers recommendation would gold-plate the already onerous capital requirements on EU banks, as set out in the Basel III protocol. Does he recognise that if the figures were implemented in full, there would be the twin risk of diminishing the attractiveness of London as a global financial centre and further disincentivising corporate lending by UK banks, which is an essential part of the economic recovery and growth that we all support?

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think that it will discourage corporate lending, nor do I think that it will make the UK any less attractive as a location for the headquarters of global banks. We addressed that issue explicitly in our response. Because the principal proposals and additional national requirements are directed at UK retail banking, I do not think that it will change people’s view of the UK as an attractive place to locate their financial services, whether it be in the City of London or elsewhere.

Northern Rock

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

What this deal does is preserve jobs in the north-east. Virgin is committed to not going beyond the existing management’s plans for compulsory redundancies. The growth of Northern Rock will come off the back of how well Virgin Money does in exploiting new markets and new opportunities. I think this is a good deal for the employees of Northern Rock. That is why staff cheered when the deal was announced on Thursday at Northern Rock’s offices in Gosforth. They wanted an end to the uncertainty that has hung over the business for the past four years. We have delivered that for them.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept that any Government should, in the Minister’s words, be looking to “get out” of the business of banking. Presumably, the fact that we have done this deal now rather than wait until the end of 2013 is due to the expectation of a considerable deterioration in the value of all the banks, including RBS and Lloyds banking group, where we have far more significant holdings. Will the Minister give an indication of the time period during which we might be getting out of the business of those two banks?

[Mr Hoban]

The decision to dispose of Northern Rock was taken in isolation from consideration of other banks. A particular set of circumstances appeared, which enabled us to sell while providing a good deal for the taxpayer, a good deal for the future of Northern Rock and a new competitor on the high street. That is why we sold Northern Rock to Virgin Money. I think it is a good deal for everyone concerned.

Eurozone Crisis

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. There is an additional liability that we know relatively little about, because the Government have not come to the House to explain it. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in this debate to address that concern. Is that true? What is the extent of the liability? How would it be called upon in the event of certain contingencies?

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend referred to the idea that we have never—hitherto, at least—lost money to the IMF. Does he recognise that there is potentially a huge opportunity cost in lending money, often at low interest rates, to the IMF? As he will know, Parliament was told at the time that the bilateral deal struck with Ireland had tremendously advantageous interest rates. There has been a haircut on that interest rate across Europe, which could well happen to any future IMF contributions that we make.

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a real danger that we underestimate the extent of the debt and the defaults that could happen. One is not joining the bandwagon of warning signals. The debt that has to be rolled over is quite clear for all to see, but I do not think the Government are acknowledging that. Simply to fall complacently back on the fact that no money ever loaned to the IMF has been lost is to miss the point completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—my very old parliamentary friend—for securing this debate. He talks with immense sense and, as a man who had a job outside politics before entering this place, immense experience. After 20 years in the financial markets, I suspect he has forgotten more about finance than many people who talk on these matters on all our behalves know.

Conventional wisdom dictates that high noon for the euro is imminent. The assumption is that the single currency will collapse or that the eurozone will be forced into a headlong rush towards full fiscal union. Nevertheless, despite all the euphoria of the past week about Italy, I suspect that we shall experience many more months of tottering along from market crisis to emergency meeting, to fully fledged conference and half-hearted bail-outs—the sort of disaster to which my hon. Friend has referred. Indeed, if—it is a very big “if” and no one seems to be focusing on it at governmental level—the global bond market remains relatively stable, the cheap price of Government debt provides little incentive to create a viable long-term structure for our ailing continent’s economies. There is a massive bubble in the bond market that no one is really talking about. The Chancellor prides himself on Britain being a safe haven; America, with its $13 trillion debt, is an even safer haven with rather lower interest rates, as is Germany. It is absolute madness when we are receiving 2.2% for getting our debt away and have inflation of 5.6%, and I am afraid that the bubble will burst at some point with, I suspect, disastrous effects.

Many purists will rightly bemoan that politics is being allowed to outweigh the economic realities, and that cannot go on for ever. What is so dangerous about the utter lack of leadership and vision among Europe’s leading politicians is that the longer this crisis continues, the more private sector confidence drains away and global markets begin to discount the entirety of Europe. More crucial still is that the two distinct problems that face many struggling European economies, solvency and liquidity, are becoming conflated in the minds of markets. The Greek issue is simply one of solvency, or rather insolvency. Greece must be allowed to default, from within the eurozone, I suspect. I support its creditors, who are predominantly EU banks, taking a substantial haircut. They lent the money at attractive interest rates, implicitly recognising the risks, and they must now take the consequences.

[Mr Carswell]

My hon. Friend talks about allowing Greece to default within the eurozone. Surely that is the worst of all possible worlds. Surely the way to handle the problem is not just to default but to decouple and set Greece free. Default within the eurozone is the worst possible option.

[Mark Field]

The only difficulty is how on earth it would ever borrow money again. Greece has been living in Alice in Wonderland economics for the past 20 years. We need to look at what happened in Argentina. That economy has struggled massively for the past decade, because it has not been able to borrow money in the international markets.

[Mr Carswell]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that today Argentina has a better bond rating than many eurozone countries and that that shows the way?

[Mark Field]

I suspect that that says more about eurozone countries than about the fundamental health of the Argentinean economy, but if my hon. Friend will excuse me, I will continue.

With the failure of European leaders and Finance Ministers truly to grasp the nettle, the liquidity problems faced by Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy are becoming ever more deep-seated. It is very difficult for Angela Merkel in Germany—as someone who has German blood running through his veins, I accept that. I appreciate that her domestic political position appears ever more precarious, because the EU’s economic powerhouse should have ceded control of the deepening crisis to the European Central Bank. The ECB’s mandate could, and perhaps should, be to provide market intervention to restore and maintain confidence on behalf of all solvent eurozone economies, but in her actions to date, Mrs Merkel has indicated that the politics are just too difficult for her nation, which remembers the days of hyperinflation during the early part of the Weimar Republic. Furthermore, all this requires, as ever within the EU, bypassing democratic safeguards, and it potentially involves unfathomably vast quantities of central bank support, with potentially hazardous medium-term economic consequences.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Field]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me; I know that others want to speak.

The twin lessons of the economic depression in the 1930s are that avoiding catastrophe requires swift action and that once a process is under way we should not worry unduly about overkill. It is better to pump too much liquidity into the system, rather than inadequate amounts. A financial system in free fall requires active central bank intervention, however irrational the collapse of market confidence. Nevertheless, in the absence of a central bank for the 17-nation eurozone that has real political clout or, more important still, sufficient funds to provide comprehensive cover in a liquidity crisis, it is regrettable that the UK is now expected to stand ready to bolster the IMF. The IMF seems to be the only institution that can bail out countries that are close to default—Italy and Spain, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay is absolutely right that there is disingenuous thinking and talking within the eurozone. The reality is that if Italy or Spain has a problem, the European Central Bank and the European financial stability facility cannot address it. Clearly, such a problem must be addressed by the IMF.

Without stable financial markets, there is little hope of the sustained growth essential to economic recovery. The UK economy is a global leader in the financial services sector, but it is especially prone as a consequence to the adverse impact of uncertainty on worldwide financial markets. No UK taxpayer will stand by and watch with any sense of satisfaction as unimaginably large sums of money or guarantees are given to bail out the banking system.

As has been pointed out, our Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly vowed that there will be no further bail-outs of the eurozone. However, in the event of a collapse in market confidence for Italy or Spain, the UK, as a founding member of the IMF, will almost certainly be expected to increase both its absolute funding and its guarantee facilities to the fund, which is an extremely unpalatable prospect. However, I also accept that a UK failure to act would not only have immediate, serious consequences for the global financial services sector, but amount to an abdication of our responsibilities as a mercantile nation in the international field of trade and commerce.

As MP for the City of London, I reluctantly accept that I have no choice but broadly to support the UK Government’s proposal to underwrite further funds to the IMF. Nevertheless, I regard that as a matter that must be addressed not by the Executive alone but also here in Parliament. If the UK taxpayer is to be further exposed to IMF loans and guarantees, that must happen only after a statement from the Prime Minister outlining why such a course of action is in the national interest, after a full parliamentary debate and as the consequence of an affirmative vote in Parliament. In my view, nothing less will do.

I know that many other Members want to speak. There is much more that I would like to say, but I will touch on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay made regarding the wisdom behind the UK Government’s enthusiastic promotion of a headlong move towards fiscal union in the eurozone. I say to the Minister that we should be extremely careful what we wish for. Such a development would embolden the eurozone, even in its apparent weakness, to embark on a rapid and radical political power grab throughout the EU. Alarm bells would ring in the City of London. It would be very bad news for this country, and we should not stand by and let it happen without ensuring that our national interests are properly served.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

One of the obvious pieces of evidence is that we are not talking about the IMF coming to bail us out—a huge achievement by the Government that should be recognised. We will have to move on from devaluation, but I think that I have made my point and others have attempted to make theirs.

Inflation would certainly help debt reduction, because it does in the long run. As I said in an intervention, when Denis Healey borrowed money from the IMF, that did arrest devaluation. We were more easily able to pay the IMF back quite quickly because of the impact of inflation. I do not support inflating the economy in that way either, as a remedy.

[Mark Field]

In the late 1970s, inflation was coming down quite rapidly from a height of 26% in 1975. One could argue that there has been a deliberate policy by the Bank of England, perhaps in cahoots with the Treasury, to allow a little bit of inflation to go into the system. That is exactly what is happening here in the UK, where historically we have had high real inflation, which is having a major impact on all our constituents’ living standards.

[Neil Carmichael]

Inflation did go down, but after the IMF loan was made. It reached a peak in 1976, which I think was 26%. That happened to coincide with the time of the IMF loan, so that is the position that we should discuss.

Amendment of the Law

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I noticed that the Chancellor did not choose to intervene with the answer that I was hoping for, but there we are. The fact is, when we came into government in 1997, we made the Bank of England independent and he opposed it.

We had a period of sustained growth and rising employment. The Conservatives said that the national minimum wage would cost jobs, but employment went up. Under the Conservatives child poverty doubled; under Labour it came down.

We had the longest sustained period of investment in the NHS since the second world war, but there was a global financial recession, which affected countries around the world. Who dealt with that? The British people should be thankful that it was not the Chancellor and his friends, because opposing nationalisation of the Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock would have been a catastrophe for the British economy.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was global downturn, and he also rightly points out that there had been continued growth between 2000 and 2007, in each and every one of those years a deficit was being run up. That is our point—an unsustainable deficit was run up in the good times, before the global crisis began.

[Ed Balls]

I have studied the Chancellor’s new fiscal mandate. He says that he wants to get the national debt on a downward trend by the end of the Parliament. We had national debt on a downward trend in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Before the financial crisis hit, our national debt was lower than the debt we inherited from the Conservatives. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are barracking—but let me answer the hon. Gentleman, because at least he asked a serious question, unlike some of the nonsense we have heard from other hon. Members on the Government side of the House. The second part of the fiscal mandate is to get the budget, excluding investment—the current balance—back into balance by 2015. Yet that is the golden rule.

The golden rule is getting, over the cycle, the current budget, excluding investment, into balance. That never happened in the 1980s and the 1990s, but it happened for a sustained period under Labour. However, it is true that, throughout that period, we borrowed to invest. Of course we did. Our infrastructure—our schools and hospitals—had not been invested in for 20 or 30 years. Throughout the period before the financial crisis, national debt was below the level that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

I have sat here today with a sense of déjà vu, first because I sat here yesterday for a number of hours and did not make it into the debate—as it wore on today I felt that the same thing was going to happen—and secondly because of the arguments from the Opposition, especially those put forward by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls). If we were to listen to him and completely ignore the fact that we had a general election in which they lost and we won and formed a coalition Government—[Interruption.] The British people clearly did not believe that Labour’s stewardship of the economy had been exemplary, which is why they were kicked out of office. That is why in places such as Erewash, a seat that Labour won in 1997, we had a 10% swing back to the Conservatives. Let us not allow Labour to pretend that their stewardship of the economy was somehow exemplary. Until they learn to accept, in front of the British public, that they made mistakes, they do not have the credibility to be part of the economic argument. Let us not allow the right hon. Gentleman to rewrite history.

I will take up the gauntlet laid down by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster). Rather than allowing Labour to push us into debating the fiscal plan that we set out last year and the implications for growth and interest rates now, let us talk about some of the excellent measures that are in “The Plan for Growth”, because Government Members owe it to the British people to explain them rather than letting the Opposition muddy the water on what happened in 2008-09, when they clearly mismanaged the economy and were kicked out of office.

[Mr Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. “The Plan for Growth”, particularly in relation to the smallest start-up businesses and the idea of exempting them from much of new regulation and legislation or putting a moratorium on it, is a very positive way forward. I hope he will explore that a little further.

[Mr Gyimah]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. One of the great things about “The Plan for Growth” is that the Chancellor did not try to say that there is a silver bullet for creating growth in the economy, or that we can pick winners. No bureaucracy or Government can really pick winners to generate economic growth. I am reminded of a story—perhaps apocryphal, but certainly instructive—about McKinsey, the strategy consultancy firm, which produced an economic outlook for the 2000s that completely omitted the internet when identifying the key drivers of economic growth. Today the internet is a massive sector worth, I think, £100 billion and employing thousands of people. It is right that we have not tried to pick winners.

Looking at what the Chancellor has done, I note that it is we, rather than Opposition Members, who recognise that growth will come from the private sector, not from a state-led programme. That is why I agree with the four objectives that he laid out: to be competitive on taxes; to be one of the best places to start, finance and grow a business; to encourage investment in exports as a route to a more balanced economy; and to create a more educated work force.

I will focus on just one of those areas—starting, financing and growing small businesses—partly because I have an interest in it because my constituency is full of small businesses. Nationally, however, there are 4.8 million small and medium-sized enterprises, and they are responsible for 50% of private sector output and 60% of jobs. If we really want to create the growth that drives jobs, we should surely look to do so from the private sector.

Research by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts points out that 6% of the fastest-growing companies create 50% of the jobs, not just in the south-east, but throughout all regions and sectors. In other words, the start-up, survival and eventual success of small companies is vital for public policy and for creating growth.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) mentioned bank lending, but fast-growing companies’ revenues are often volatile and their cash flows can be unpredictable. Banks do not want to lend to them, so we need to be able to create an environment for equity lending. One thing we know in the UK is that, if people want to raise amounts below £2 million, they find it incredibly difficult to do so. Such risk capital, however, encourages businesses to take a risk—to take on the new plant, to hire new staff—so it is great that there are so many changes to the enterprise investment scheme in “The Plan for Growth”.

Increasing relief to 30% means that someone who is going to invest in a business knows that they can offset 30% of their investment against tax. It will encourage people to take sensible risks and invest in those companies that will drive growth. Raising the relevant annual limit to £1 million and to £10 million per company means that companies can seek capital from high net-worth and private individuals, not just from institutions. Anybody who is involved in small businesses knows that people often rely on friends and family to support their business in its early stages, so it is good to see the Government backing those who are ready and willing to take such risks.

Raising the limit on qualifying companies to 250 employees means that the measure will apply not just to start-up companies, where the failure rate can be quite high, but to well-established companies that need capital to grow. I would like to see what more the Government can do to allow connected persons to enjoy such tax reliefs, because connected persons—directors—cannot enjoy them at the moment, and that is where businesses get much of the expertise that they need. By making investment in small businesses easier, the Budget recognises and encourages people who are willing to take risks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

In listening to the debate today, and certainly yesterday, I was interested to note that George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth is still alive and well and speaking through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His relentless Newspeak mantra that we are all in it together just will not wash. When we consider that poverty is increasing, unemployment is going up, and the Government Benches are stuffed full of millionaires and people who are doing extremely well for themselves, it is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that we are all in it together.

It is not only wrong to suggest that for those reasons, but because the cuts are very unevenly spread, and depending on which part of the country someone happens to be from, a different level of cuts are being imposed. They are far greater in the more deprived parts than in the more affluent parts. The reality is that the poorest people in Britain will bear the biggest burden of the cuts imposed by this Administration.

According to a new report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the British people are suffering the biggest drop in their living standards for 30 years. It is no coincidence that 30 years ago another Tory Government presided over the last drop in living standards. The Business Secretary said today that he was happy to have the worst public services in the G7 countries by 2014-15. What an admission from a member of a party that used to claim to be a progressive party that stood up for ordinary working people! Clearly, that is a long way in the past.

[Mr Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman makes great play of the idea of reduced living standards. That is not a phenomenon that has arisen only over the past nine months. Indeed, it was when the credit and debt bubble was built up for many years during the last Labour Administration that living standards for ordinary people began to be undermined. As for saying that we are all in this together, that is the very reason that the Chancellor has bravely decided, although it does not make a lot of economic sense, to keep the highest rate of tax at 50%. I fear, however, that he is doing grave damage in ensuring that some people who should be developing businesses here are leaving these shores, which is not in anyone’s interests, rich or poor.

[Chris Williamson]

There is nothing brave about what the Chancellor is doing. In fact, he is behaving like a bully; he is picking on the poorest and weakest members of our community. As I have said, the poorest in our society will bear the biggest burden of these cuts. If Labour had won the last general election, the measures that we would have put in place would have ensured that the poorest people in our country did not bear the biggest burden. That is an absolute fact, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) in his speech.

The Chancellor claims that this is a Budget for growth, he says that he wants a private sector-led recovery, and he argues that his catastrophic cuts are necessary. However, this Budget will not deliver the growth that the country needs, it will not precipitate a private sector-led recovery, and it will not create the jobs that the country desperately needs. While other countries are seeing their economies grow, the UK’s growth forecasts have once again been revised down—for the third time in 10 months. That is dreadful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Before I start, let me refer the House to the register. I give advice on transport matters to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and economic advice to the Professional Contractors Group.

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, who welcomed a number of the measures in the Budget. Some will clearly be helpful, so it was perhaps disappointing that the shadow Chancellor did not acknowledge them. He will probably be relieved to learn that I have little in common with him, apart from the fact that we were both economics undergraduates—I suspect that he was rather more distinguished than I was. I remember one of the first tutorials given by Maurice Peston, now Lord Peston, a former Labour adviser who taught us about economic debate. I just wonder whether the shadow Chancellor needs to reflect on how his proposition that the cuts are being made too fast and too deep is equally a subject of economic debate, and whether, as could be argued, he is being just as ideological and dogmatic as he claims the Government are.

For there are some economic facts—some economic truths—even if the shadow Chancellor did not want to accept them this afternoon. Whatever he says, this Government were left with the biggest peacetime deficit—a deficit that was 11% of GDP, twice that of Germany and Italy, while France had 8.6%. Borrowing is costing £120 million, and let us be clear: the total stock of debt tripled over the lifetime of the Labour Government. Those are facts.

[Mr Mark Field]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the brutal truth is that for many years we have collectively lived well beyond our means? Only our near-zero interest rates are disguising just how damaging that is.

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a correct point, and those are true facts. The causes of those facts may be in dispute. There is a clamour from the Labour party about the financial crisis. No one is suggesting that it did not happen, but equally the Labour party cannot escape the fact that this country had a structural deficit before the financial crisis or that Labour contributed at least partly to that crisis, because the regulatory regime that the previous Government put in place made no estimation of systemic risk.

There are risks to the Budget strategy—although I should say from the outset that I support it wholeheartedly. Those risks concern the lack of growth in places such as Brazil, India and China—which are slowing dramatically compared with previous levels—global inflation and the eurozone crisis, which the Prime Minister is talking about today. There are risks to the Budget strategy; it is just that the risks that the Opposition are talking about are not the risks that are real. Their strategy relies on their comment about the cuts being “too fast, too deep”. This is not just about the fact that no international economic body agrees with them, or about their plan to halve the deficit over the lifetime of this Parliament—which the shadow Chancellor reiterated again this afternoon, albeit without giving any detail. That deficit might or might not halve, but the total stock of debt would still rise, as would the cost of servicing it, even at this level.

The shadow Chancellor was wrong blindly to dismiss what is happening in the gilt markets. I read the yield curve this morning, just as he did, and it is clear that 10-year gilts yields are low at the moment. If the market believed that the Government’s debt reduction plan was going to change, those yields would undoubtedly rise and the cost of borrowing would rise substantially from £120 million a day, ruling out any prospect of more of the things that we really want to spend public money on. Labour Members shouted out, “Too fast, too deep,” yesterday, but they should remember that there are risks involved, and that theirs is an equally dogmatic strategy.

It has been interesting to observe the movement in the past year from the Opposition Benches to the Government Benches. Year after year, as we sat on the Opposition Benches, we listened to Chancellors changing their forecasts and changing the length of economic cycles. I would gently say to the Opposition that we have growth in the economy, and that there is growth for the next four years. Its overall level might be tinkered with slightly, but the forecasts often change—

[Stephen Hammond]

No, far from it. The hon. Gentleman was not in the last Parliament, when the Chancellor consistently got it all wrong. The Opposition say that the Government’s position is dogmatic, but my contention is that theirs is equally dogmatic.

[Mr Mark Field]

Does my hon. Friend also recognise the massive distinction, in the context of forecasts on growth and throughout the economic sphere, between what happened before the election and what has happened since May 2010? In the past the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the forecasts in his own interests. We have instituted the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, and it is a sign of the robustness of its independence that it has issued the downgrades in the forecasts to reflect changing circumstances.

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed; I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The shadow Chancellor, in contending today that the changes were too fast and too deep, once again relied on the Keynesian multiplier. He is an eminent economist, and he should know better than to rely too heavily on that mechanism. It has traditionally held out the prospect that public sector investment has an impact on the private sector, so there could be an element of crowding out and of limiting of growth potential. If the right hon. Gentleman has read the recent academic research, however, he will also know that the size of the multiplier in the growth phase of an economy is about a third of the size of the multiplier when an economy is going into recession. To rely on that thesis is therefore to rely on a very weak economic mechanism.

But let us leave the world of deficit denial behind, and welcome a Budget that does not bow to pressure. It is hugely important that the Government should stick to their policy of deficit reduction, as that is the only way to achieve long-term growth in the economy. Market rates clearly indicate that there is confidence in what the Government are doing, and to be blown off course would result in a loss of confidence. The cost of borrowing and the yields on 10-year gilts, which are important for the cost of industry borrowing and UK Government borrowing, would change. Domestic inflation would rise in those circumstances, and any indication of making a special case for one would result in having to make a special case for another. The Government are therefore to be congratulated on sticking to their policy.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

It is fitting that we are discussing the Bill the day before the Budget. I understand that there are particular reasons, which the Minister will no doubt explain to the House, why the Bill needs to receive Royal Assent this evening, before we reach Budget day, so I am conscious that the ministerial clock is ticking. I pay tribute to the Public Bill Committee, whose members scrutinised the Bill in what I regard as sufficient detail.

Essentially, the first half of the Bill sets out the establishment of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the second half makes a series of changes to the National Audit Office governance arrangements. It is fair to say that the Committee spent less time on the second half of the Bill, as the House had previously scrutinised many of those measures, but for various reasons that legislation was not included in the wash-up before the last general election. Most of our attention today will focus on the OBR.

Clause 1 relates not specifically to the OBR, but to the creation of a charter for budget responsibility. As we know, the Government have their reasons and rationale for making this set of legislative proposals. It was notable in Committee that Members were quizzical about why the charter for budget responsibility has been quite narrowly defined and why the OBR’s duties are similarly quite controlled and slimline. My view is that any realistic definition of budget responsibility must take account of the impact on jobs and growth of the wider economy and Treasury decisions on fiscal policy, particularly in the current context.

We know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is currently grappling to acquire a growth strategy, some of which might have been left on a number of photocopiers around the building before Treasury questions, although I have not been party to the memo that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor picked up—I will try to get hold of him later to see what was in it. Clearly, the real economy has clashed with the Government’s plan A, which they have refused to depart from, which meant that in the fourth quarter of 2010, as GDP figures show, the economy went into reverse and shrank. The Chancellor blames the wrong kind of snow, but evidently the Government’s approach to fiscal policy has created circumstances that have not only put the brakes on economic growth, but unfortunately seem to have put it into reverse.

When we debated clauses 1 and 4 in Committee, Members felt that it was important to try to challenge the notion that we should somehow have an Office for Budget Responsibility that confines itself to fiscal, deficit and debt issues, to the exclusion of other equally important indices drawn from the wider economy.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The course of events that the hon. Gentleman describes is surely a tribute to the independence of the advisory body—the OBR—during its first phase following last June’s Budget, but does he not share my concern that if it were to have the increased powers, it would cease to be advisory and independent, which it should be, and in some way would become a challenge to Treasury policy? It is correct that it has relatively limited powers, but above all those powers should remain independent and advisory to the Treasury.

[Chris Leslie]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about creating a third institution when it should be Parliament’s job to challenge the Executive and the Treasury on their policies. The point we want to make through the amendments is essentially that, simply to have a fiscal mandate in the charter for budget responsibility is inadequate. We feel that it is important to have a growth mandate to supplement the fiscal mandate in the charter and, more than that, that the Office for Budget Responsibility should also have a duty to assess the impact of the Treasury’s policies on the real economy, on employment and on growth. I do not think that that necessarily sets the office’s face against or in juxtaposition to the Treasury—it would simply give it absolute clarity that it had the right and appropriate remit to consider those wider real economic effects.

[Mr Field]

But there is already a clear monetary mandate in the hands of the Bank of England. Surely a growth mandate along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests would muddy the waters, if not necessarily between the Treasury and the OBR, then between the Bank and the OBR?

[Chris Leslie]

Perhaps this is where I differ from the hon. Gentleman. I think that a slightly dry and narrow focus on the accountancy issues in the draft charter for budget responsibility, as well as a monetary policy focus at the Bank of England and in the charter, with no or scant focus on the real economy—economic growth, employment and some of those very important issues that affect all our constituents—would be a deficiency in the role of the OBR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend suggests that the measure is phantom paraphernalia, enrobing the creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility simply to give it a sense of grand importance, and in fact it could have deleterious consequences. That is certainly one crucial reason why we felt it important to table the amendment, stating that at the very least there should be a broader set of mandates within the charter, and that a growth mandate would be especially important.

[Mr Mark Field]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

It would probably be unwise for these provisions to be too wide. The credibility of inflation targeting would be undermined if the target were to be changed even on an irregular basis, if at all. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, the remit of the Bank of England covers not only inflation targeting but the greater interests of the overall economy. The latter remit is less well known than the former, but it is the reason interest rates have stayed at a very low level given the high levels of RPI and CPI that we are experiencing.

[Chris Leslie]

I would recommend that all hon. Members take a look at the draft charter for budget responsibility, which has several interesting facets. I have no doubt that the Minister will explain, in layman’s terms, what is meant by a

“rolling, five-year forecast period”

in relation to the cyclically adjusted current balance. Some hon. Members might find it difficult to envisage how that rolling forecast will operate in principle. Many of us can understand the concept of a fixed year or a fixed date against which a set of targets are to be judged, but if the horizon shifts continually, that is different. It would be interesting to hear the Minister explain that when she responds.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Fiscal responsibility is the overriding priority of this Government. In May, within 24 hours of taking office, we published a coalition agreement setting out our agenda for government. Fiscal responsibility was the very first item on the very first page of that agreement. It read:

“deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain.”

Let me remind the House why we chose that as our priority. We inherited the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, we inherited a budget deficit forecast to be the largest in the G20, and we inherited the largest structural deficit in the whole of Europe. We simply could not ignore the mountain of debt that was casting a shadow over our economy and our people, so we set ourselves an ambitious task—to bring order back to the nation’s finances. The Bill aims to do exactly that.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Will the Minister add one more criterion to her list—that a moral case needs to be made for ensuring that we do not pass on to future generations the debts that have been racked up for the consumption of the generations alive today?

[Justine Greening]

I agree absolutely. Far too often we fail to make the point that the penalty for not dealing with the deficit today will be to hand on even bigger debts to our children tomorrow. They will not thank us, and should not thank us, if we fail to address the urgent crisis that we have come into government to tackle.

Before I get into the detail, I would like to set out again the Government’s broader fiscal objectives. This coalition Government believe that fiscal policy should ensure that the national finances are sustainable. As I have just said, sustainable public finances mean that future generations will not need to pay for the services enjoyed by all of us today. Sustainable public finances mean that the economy can expand and grow without the fear of tax hikes and spending cuts in the future. Sustainable public finances also mean that monetary policy can operate effectively and stabilise the economy, when needed. With that in mind, we have taken decisive action since taking office.

In May, we had immediate reductions to in-year spending, which bought us much-needed breathing space in the sovereign debt storm raging across Europe. The emergency Budget in June was the moment when fiscal credibility was restored. At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the Government’s fiscal mandate. Our first goal within the mandate is to balance the structural current deficit by the end of a rolling five-year forecast period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

We do not have a presidential system: we have a prime ministerial system and the leader of the governing party tends to be asked by Her Majesty the Queen to form the Government. That is what has always happened, and if the Minister wishes to change that, perhaps we need to take an even wider look at our constitutional arrangements than that planned by the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Mr Mark Field]

Although the hon. Lady makes a fair point about explicit mandates, it is surely also the case that there was absolutely no explicit mandate for any of the actions taken by the erstwhile Government after 2008, given the situation that we found ourselves in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are getting tempted once again. If Members stick to the Bill, that will be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. As you know, I have to attend a constituency engagement for which, unbelievably, I am not well enough attired, for it is a black-tie dinner in the City of London. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I am supposed to be protected from that lot, Mr Deputy Speaker, so do your level best, please. I apologise that I shall not be here for all the winding-up speeches.

Listening in the House to Budgets and autumn statements over much of the past decade has been, at times, a somewhat surreal experience. Year after year the erstwhile Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), rattled out cascading figures for growth and public deficit reduction. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) rightly pointed out, the growth figures proved, at least until the middle of the previous decade, to be uncannily accurate, even often defying so-called expert opinion. However, the deficit numbers were always hopelessly, devastatingly inaccurate.

Almost comically, although this can scarcely be regarded as a laughing matter, every single Budget between 2001 and 2007 forecast that the public finances would move back into surplus in about three or four years. As time wore on, the debt and annual deficit rose inexorably as the Treasury employed smoke and mirrors to conjure the illusion of fiscal stability.

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) cast aspersions on the ability of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), now the Justice Secretary, to forecast, saying that in 1996 he forecast more than 2.5% growth. Information has reached me that in 1997 growth was more than 3%, so it turns out that he was right. What does my hon. Friend make of that?

[Mr Field]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. In the one case in which the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) tried to argue that there had somehow been untoward behaviour by the last Conservative Government, events have proven, if anything, that they surpassed what had been expected.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Field]

I fear that we are going to go over old ground, but let us do it.

[Ms Eagle]

Having conceded that point, the hon. Gentleman now seems to be saying that the best solution is to have the Chancellor make the forecasts personally, which does not seem to be the point of the Bill.

[Mr Field]

As I recall it, the point was conceded by Opposition Members, not by those on this side.

The relevance of all this to our current economic woes should not be underestimated. With global investors buying into the fiscal assurances made by the erstwhile Government, the rosy forecasts played their part in making it easy for Britain to borrow money during the past decade, and borrow we did, even in the good times. We all now know the disastrous consequences that came to pass.

This salutary experience provided the genesis of the idea for an office for budget responsibility. I must confess that when the Chancellor first mooted the idea in late 2008, when shadow Chancellor, I was sceptical and thought that it sounded like the ideal proposition to be made in opposition and then quietly forgotten. I believe that it is to his great credit that the notion saw the light of day so soon after my party reached government.

My other fear was that it might be an overly inflexible straitjacket to constrain freedom of manoeuvre. Again, the Chancellor has addressed this point up front, as has the Economic Secretary. The Chancellor desires and even relishes such a restriction on himself—and, I suspect, on his successors. Although it might not prove to be quite as revolutionary as the Treasury would have us believe, I accept that it is still an important step towards transparency and accountability in forecasting budgetary numbers.

My only reservations are relatively small and relate to issues of practice, rather than of principle. I fear that the real strains and potential limitations of any office for budget responsibility will unfortunately come at the point in the economic cycle when we most need prescient and instinctive judgment. At such times of crisis or near crisis in any economic phase, we require a robust willingness to stand up against the conventional wisdom of the day.

In the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, for example, no forecasting organisation saw the crash coming. No one in this House, not even the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, despite all that is now said on his behalf, really foresaw precisely what would happen. That includes all the independent bodies, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Let us wonder how the OBR, had it been established, might have acted only three or four years ago. Had it not shared the outlook of other forecasters, would it have had the mettle or the strength in 2007 to tell the previous Government that they were living far beyond their means? How would it have been viewed if it alone had advised the Government at that stage to hold back on their spending plans or, indeed, increase the tax burden? I believe that the true test of its effectiveness will come only when it is required to deliver such unpalatable news in future.

Similarly, what if the OBR had concurred with the forecasts of other organisations at the time but a more responsible Chancellor had been in place who instinctively viewed the economically clement weather as only a mirage? Might the perceived infallibility of an OBR forecast have restricted his or her ability to take measures that went against the common wisdom? To that extent, I have some sympathy with what has been said by those on both Front Benches, because we do not know how forecasts will pan out. Even as recently as the emergency Budget on 20 June 2010, many predictions for growth; and certainly for unemployment were made at the time that even I thought were slightly too optimistic. The OBR’s notion was that unemployment would reach a peak during the current tax year. We hope that that will be the case, but that will not be down just to Government policy, by any stretch of the imagination. I think that the way the economic cycle has worked out globally means that unemployment is likely to be somewhat higher during 2011-12 and perhaps even higher still the following year.

I believe that there are some unavoidable conflicts in the OBR’s operation. Organisational independence is absolutely vital to its working and credibility, as the Economic Secretary noted in her contribution. However, it must necessarily rely on a close relationship with the Treasury in order to understand its methods and have access to its data. Members have already mentioned the blurring of those boundaries between the Treasury and its new independent conscience that led to the first hiccup last summer—the argument that spilled over from the release of the OBR’s unemployment forecast, which happened to bolster the Prime Minister’s argument when he was under fire later that day at Prime Minister’s questions.

One must accept that there will almost inevitably be an ongoing tension and an inherent potential for a conflict of interest, but I hope that that has been eased now that the OBR has been able to move out of its Treasury offices and acquire an important physical independence. Without the trust that stems from such autonomy, the OBR is absolutely nothing. Nevertheless, there is also a danger that it will be seen as perhaps too credible and as a panacea in its own right.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend will note that in her closing remarks the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) told the House not to see the OBR as a panacea. Did he notice the irony of that statement, because it was the previous Government who passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010 and presented that as a panacea to the nation, pretending that it is possible to legislate and bring down the deficit without taking any tough decisions?

[Mr Field]

I do not want to go too far into the past, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We now recognise the hubristic foolishness of the notion of ending boom and bust and that the economic cycle had somehow been put to one side. We have all now learned that lesson, and this generation of Members will be much more sceptical about any such panacea that is proposed in future.

As I have said, no organisation, not even those without links to the Government, forecast the scale of the economic crisis. Ultimately, economic forecasts are just that, and if we place blind faith in the independent projections, potential risks might also be ignored. Therefore, part of the OBR’s continuing role must be constantly to remind us all of its own fallibility and advise on a range of possible outcomes, pointing out not only to politicians, but to financial markets, the longer-term threats to our economy in the event that the markets, in particular, prove too forgiving.

Putting aside those concerns, which are relatively minor in comparison with the entirety of what we are trying to achieve, there is a great deal to welcome, particularly with regard to transparency and accountability. Furthermore, if the OBR works as it should, it is likely that any unofficial tinkering by the Treasury will be flagged up early and properly scrutinised by Parliament, returning some long-lost gravitas to the Treasury Committee and to Parliament itself.

As I have said in this House before, the restoration of confidence to our economy was always going to depend largely on rebuilding trust. The establishment of the OBR marks an important milestone in encouraging us to place our faith once again in the financial and political systems of our nation. We must of course be alert to the potential pitfalls in its operation, but it also represents an important check against a hitherto unchecked Treasury, and as such the OBR must now be treated as a credible new fixture in this fresh financial landscape.