LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that confidence in the process of setting LIBOR has been damaged—of course—by these revelations. That is precisely why, if I may say to him, I want to get on with it: that is why I have asked Mr Wheatley to do his report in the next couple of months, not even by the end of the year—so that we have the opportunity in October of amending, just before it becomes law, the Financial Services Bill. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on public inquiries, and I am sure he will agree that a public inquiry would take years to get to that point. Let us get to that point this autumn.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I fully support greater transparency in banking and, in particular, punishing those who have done wrong, but can the Chancellor from the Dispatch Box today reassure my constituents who, as part of their pensions, hold shares in banks that the Government, or the inquiry, will take no action that unnecessarily undermines the value of those pensions?

[Mr Osborne]

We would not want to take actions that unnecessarily undermined the value of anything, so my hon. Friend has that assurance.

Jobs and Growth

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

‘but regrets that whilst the UK economy is in recession, long-term unemployment is at its highest level since 1996 and one million young people are out of work the Gracious Speech contains no measures to address this crisis; notes that Britain will pay a long-term price for a prolonged period of slow growth and high unemployment; further notes that France, Germany and the Eurozone as a whole are not in recession while in the USA, where the Government has to date taken a more balanced approach to support economic recovery, the economy is now one per cent bigger than before the global financial crisis, while the UK economy is now 4.3 per cent smaller; recognises the criticism expressed by business leaders that your Government has not come forward with an adequate plan to boost economic growth; believes that cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast is self-defeating as slow growth and higher unemployment means that your Government is now set to borrow £150 billion more than planned; and calls on your Government to introduce a fair and balanced deficit plan, with measures to stimulate economic growth and job creation which are essential to get the deficit down, including a tax on bank bonuses to fund a guaranteed job for every young person out of work for more than a year, a temporary cut in VAT, a national insurance holiday for small firms taking on extra workers, and bringing forward infrastructure investment to strengthen the economy for the long-term.’.

It is a great honour to open the final day of this Queen’s Speech debate, and to do so in this very special diamond jubilee year. But I have to say how disappointing it is, with our economy now pushed into recession, the eurozone crisis deepening, and businesses and families up and down the country crying out for a plan for jobs and growth, that we are today debating what is widely regarded to be a disappointing and directionless Queen’s Speech programme from a Tory-led coalition that has, frankly, lost its way.

What a change this is from two years ago. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in the debate on the Government’s first Queen’s Speech, four weeks after the general election and two weeks before his first Budget, he was bursting with hubris. He was so sure of himself that, when the then shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), and many other hon. Members on this side of the House asked whether the Chancellor planned to bring forward immediate and deep tax rises and said that spending cuts might choke off the recovery, the Chancellor dismissed those concerns out of hand. He was confident that his plan would

“deal with our debts, set our country on a brighter economic course and show that we are all in this together.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 206.]

What a difference two years makes.

“We are all in this together”: we do not hear that line any more—not from a Chancellor whose Budget decisions have hit middle and lower-income families harder than those on the highest incomes. His Budget decisions have hit women harder than men and families with children harder still. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms that his Budgets have been regressive and will see child poverty rise. Last month’s omnishambles of a Budget included decisions to raise taxes on caravans, charity donations, church repairs, pensioners, pasties and petrol, but to have a top-rate tax cut only for the richest—a £3 billion tax cut, which will give 14,000 of the richest people in our society earning over £1 million an average tax cut of £40,000 a year. Millions are paying more in tax to pay for a tax cut for millionaires. No wonder the Chancellor and the Prime Minister can no longer bring themselves to say that “We are all in this together”.

Let me remind the Chancellor of what the chair of the Conservative Association in Harlow said last week:

“The voters are disillusioned with Cameron himself. They don’t like the fact that he did not keep the 50p tax. People feel he is not working for them.”

Apparently, the Chancellor was advised precisely not to cut the top rate by his own Downing street pollster, Mr Andrew Cooper. Let me say to the Chancellor that, in my experience, disregarding the wise advice of someone called Cooper can be a very dangerous course to take.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s closeness to the new French President Mr Hollande and given that the shadow Chancellor mentioned the top rate of tax, does he think that the dash for growth will be enhanced or hindered by the introduction of a 75p top rate?

[Ed Balls]

I do not think that introducing a 75p tax rate in Britain would be the right thing to do at all. That is not our policy, but I do not think that cutting the top rate from 50p to 45p will be good for jobs, growth or fairness either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the measures set out in the Queen’s Speech to address jobs and growth, particularly the banking reform Bill and the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill. I also welcome the rise in employment announced yesterday, and I hope we will see a rise in full-time as well as part-time employment next month.

The Government are doing a lot to address long-term unemployment among the young—a problem that beleaguered and bedevilled the previous Government—but I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) that far more needs to be done. The Government have done a lot on apprenticeships, which is to be welcomed. I congratulate the Government overall on trying to rebalance the economy. We should have more people in our economy creating wealth rather than spending it, so we need to get the balance right between private sector and public sector employment.

It is questionable whether the current tax regime for business will be sufficient to grow the economy in the way that all hon. Members would like. I welcome the Government’s announcement on corporation tax, but my view is that it might not be enough to create the growth the country needs. Perhaps they need to look again at the corporation tax rate and the timetable for introducing it. I would like to see a 20p corporation tax rate introduced from April next year, and the higher rate—not the alternative rate—to be reduced from 40p to 36p from April next year.

That would affect revenue in the short term—some might say that that will add to the deficit—but in the medium term, and quite quickly, as people are rewarded for their risk, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and as the economy grows on the back of that, revenues for the Exchequer would increase. We need more courage and less timidity in the Government’s tax plans and strategy.

I would like the business rate freeze extended for small businesses and our struggling high streets. I welcome the fact that the Government have extended it again for this year, but we must look again and probably extend it to the following year.

The Chancellor rightly mentioned the eurozone—I am moving away from my notes, which is quite dangerous. I have spoken out before on the International Monetary Fund. Whatever has been said, there is absolutely no doubt that some IMF contributions have been used as a back-door bail-out for the euro. Why do I say that? What is the evidence? Three eurozone countries have received bilateral loans from the IMF because their economies are failing, and they are failing in part because of their membership of the euro. A one-size-fits-all monetary policy for the whole of Europe was always a political project. It cannot be right to apply an interest rate in Germany reflecting the unique circumstances of the German economy to the unique and particular circumstances of, for example, the Portuguese economy or—perhaps more on our minds today—the Greek economy. That is the fundamental point. The euro is a political project that has gone horribly wrong, as many people warned that it would. We have heard a lot about new, bigger firewalls, but those will not deal with the underlying structural problems of a lack of competitiveness in Europe and the failed political dream—or, some might say, nightmare—that is the euro.

Finally, the European Investment Bank, although an important institution, should not be used as a new, indirect bail-out mechanism for a failing euro or eurozone. We are one of the four largest contributors to the EIB. Yes, it is important, but it should not be used as a back-door mechanism to save a failing euro. We want the euro to succeed. At the moment, we need to address the underlying problem.

IMF

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The communiqué that was issued by the Finance Ministers and the European Central Bank governors said explicitly, with reference to the $430 billion that was provided by the countries at the meeting:

“These resources will be available for the whole membership of the IMF, and not earmarked for any particular region.”

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

But is not the IMF in danger of sleight of hand? On the one hand the IMF claims not to bail out currencies, yet on the other hand it offers bilateral loans to countries in the eurozone that are failing because of the eurozone currency. Is that not an indirect loan from the IMF?

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I expect the hon. Lady’s constituents, like mine, regret that the Government cancelled the future jobs fund, which was helping young people back into work. Since that cancellation, long-term youth unemployment in her constituency has gone up not just by a little bit, but by 36%. That is the reality that her constituents face day in, day out.

I hope we will not hear the usual hand-wringing—although I might have to give up that hope—or the usual shoulder-shrugging or blame-shifting. The jobs crisis is not a fact of life or a force of nature, and the Government cannot play the innocent bystander, as they have tried to do. The jobs crisis is a result of the choices they have made. They chose to cut too far and too fast; to abolish employment programmes that were working; and to destroy job opportunities in both public and private sectors.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The hon. Lady approaches such matters very thoughtfully indeed, and as a future Labour leader I would expect nothing else of her, much to the shock and horror of the shadow Chancellor.

Does the hon. Lady accept that the economy needs to be rebalanced and that we need more tax producers than tax consumers? Surely we can all agree on that.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not sure how the Government will rebalance the economy by throwing more people on the scrapheap. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I will just have to disagree, but that does not seem to me to be the way to rebalance the economy and to get it growing again.

Despite the Government’s mistakes, they still have choices open to them.

Offshore Financial Centres

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Westminster Hall

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

As international organisations and major Governments seek to understand the cause of the global financial crisis, small international financial centres have repeatedly endured political attacks and misguided criticisms—from pejorative sniping about their being tax havens and offshore centres for avaricious bankers, to allegations that they provide secrecy jurisdictions for shady figures in the international business community. Those criticisms suggest that they are partly to blame for the shortcomings in the financial markets. The debate about the role of small IFCs has, to date, been remarkably one-sided, which is unfortunate as it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about their function and the benefits that they provide to the wider global economy.

Before the United Kingdom and our global partners look to develop further rigorous international standards on financial regulation, it is critical that politicians and policy makers should formulate and implement policy in an informed, consistent and balanced manner and vital that we should now take a dispassionate view of the offshore IFCs and look sensibly at the significant benefits that they can offer, both to our nation and the broader global financial system.

The UK has an almost unique position in the debate about IFCs. We have a constitutional relationship, through our Crown dependencies and overseas territories, with half of the top 30 offshore financial centres. With the Chinese Government successfully lobbying the G20 last month for both Macao and Hong Kong to be excluded from any OECD grey list on matters of tax transparency, it looks increasingly likely that the standards and regulations currently being formulated may be imposed in some jurisdictions yet overlooked in others. Not only is that incompatible with the need to find a global response to the formation of new financial regulation, but it risks undermining the UK’s financial sector and the wider British economy, which is a major recipient of investment capital raised through small IFCs.

Some small international financial centres, such as Jersey and Guernsey, are used by the global financial community for various reasons, including political stability and a favourable economic outlook; familiar legal systems, often based on English common law; a very high quality of service providers; the ability to meet important investor requirements, such as a legal infrastructure to sell shares; a lack of foreign exchange controls that remove restrictions on the payment of interest of dividends; tax neutrality—not to be confused with tax evasion—which enables investors from multiple jurisdictions to ensure they do not meet multiple layers of taxation as funds pass through the global financial system; and legal neutrality, which ensures that no nationality is given special treatment.

For those reasons there has been a mutually beneficial relationship between the City of London, in my constituency, and many Crown dependencies and overseas territories. That is demonstrated not only by the massive capital flows between the two, aiding market liquidity and investment in the UK, but by the legal and constitutional similarities and the transfer of skilled professionals.

To give some idea of the scale of the capital flows, I should say that UK banks had net financing from Guernsey alone—one of the 30 top centres—of $74.1 billion at the end of June 2009. Unfortunately, because the public debate is largely myopic in respect of IFCs, these benefits are often overlooked or conveniently ignored, in part as a result of small IFCs’ relatively low profile and partly because of a lack of seats on intergovernmental bodies that design global financial regulation.

There now needs to be a much greater understanding of the role and proven benefits provided by small international financial centres as part of the City of London’s transaction chain. I therefore seek to dispel some of the popular myths that surround such centres. The first myth is that IFCs have a negative impact on growth in the global economy. In reality, many of the smallest IFCs are able to provide a stable, well regulated and neutral jurisdiction through which to facilitate international and cross-border business. Investment channelled into small IFCs will in turn provide much-needed liquidity, further investment opportunities, genuine competitiveness and access to capital markets for businesses and investors in both the major developed world and, increasingly, in countries with vast emerging markets.

The recent Treasury review of this area, undertaken by Michael Foot—not that one, Mr Caton—concluded:

“The Crown Dependencies make a significant contribution to the liquidity of the UK market. Together they provided net financing to UK banks of $332.5 billion in the second quarter of 2009.”

Those funds are largely accounted for by the up-streaming of deposits collected by UK banks to their UK head offices, including the nationalised or part-nationalised Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland, as well as Barclays, HSBC, Santander and a number of building societies.

In addition to aiding capital flows, a report by the university of Michigan’s Professor James Hines on the relation between IFCs and the world economy reveals that expanding investment opportunities through offshore centres leads to increased domestic investment and employment, creating jobs both at the financial centre and in the domestic economies.

Small IFCs play an important role in helping to allocate capital efficiently. To this end, they act as important financial intermediaries, matching the capital provided by savers in one country with the investment needs of borrowers in another. Although that has, understandably, led to concerns about “round tripping”, in which capital is recycled through an offshore centre to give it the appearance of foreign investment and attract a more favourable tax regime, the experience of China and India throws those concerns into doubt, because both of those countries have removed tax breaks for foreign investment during the past decade and both have seen internal and inward investment continue to soar. As a major net recipient of capital flows from small IFCs, our firms in the City might suffer if they found it more difficult to access capital via the international markets.

A second myth is that small IFCs played a part in causing the global financial crisis over the past three years. Although it is convenient to blame offshore centres for causing the crisis, even those who work in the financial markets do not accept that small IFCs were a major cause. Last year, the Treasury Committee found that Guernsey did not contribute at all to global financial contagion. Indeed, it could be argued that the liquidity provided by the small IFCs was significantly positive for the UK during the crisis.

The third myth is that IFCs engage in harmful tax practices. The Foot review suggested that the potential for tax leakage from so-called full tax jurisdictions, such as the UK, towards low-tax or zero-tax regimes, is relatively limited. Although the TUC has argued that the tax gap created in UK Government tax receipts as a result of offshore centres is some £25 billion, the Deloitte report commissioned by the Treasury at the time of the Foot report showed that only £2 billion is potentially lost in tax leakage per annum. Foot also concluded that the real figure might even be lower than that.

Concerns about the UK’s tax base being stripped by unfair competition have also been overstated. It is clear that the debate about tax competition needs to be properly redefined and any further policy initiatives need to protect the important principle of tax sovereignty, as well as adequately recognising the impact of tax regimes on the productive sector. The OECD has clearly warned about the detrimental effects of high corporate tax on productivity. In that regard, I welcome the moves to reduce corporation tax and peg capital gains tax. The recent attacks on the zero-10 tax regimes reveal a worrying trend, in which the sovereignty of independent states to set their own tax rates is undermined and high-tax countries seek to export their high tax rates around the world.

Economic models vary country by country. The adoption of a tax regime premised on the principles of lower tax burdens, efficient government and dynamic private sector activity is legitimate and some degree of tax competition should therefore be recognised as positive. Regardless of that, small IFCs have shown a willingness to engage with the concerns raised by their tax regime—for example, Guernsey and Jersey are voluntarily undertaking a corporate tax review to act within the spirit of the EU tax code.

A fourth myth suggests that small IFCs have a negative impact on transparency, regulation and information exchange. With the G20 placing tax transparency at the top of its agenda, understandably, small IFCs are actively participating in the expansion of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information. Indeed, an International Monetary Fund review of Jersey’s regulatory standards in September last year concluded that it was in the top division of financial centres, and gave it the highest ranking ever achieved by a financial centre in respect of compliance with IMF recommendations.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about tax transparency, and he also mentions capital flows. Does he accept that offshore centres such as the British Virgin Islands, which are on the OECD’s white list and peer review group, have set the trend in many ways on transparency? The Government should recognise that, and that such centres help rather than hinder the UK’s economy.

[Mr Field]

I agree, and that is greatly to the credit of the British Virgin Islands and other overseas dependencies, as well as some of the Crown dependencies to which I have referred. They have played an important role and led the way in the transparency agenda.

One of the great myths to have grown up is that small offshore centres do not benefit developing countries. Small IFCs have been accused of supporting capital flight out of developing countries, but the Commonwealth secretariat is publishing a new report this month to illustrate the importance of the role played by IFCs in helping developing countries, by enabling them to rent financial expertise from other countries while they develop their own financial centres. Crucially, they also offer investors greater protection of their property rights against domestic political uncertainty.

It is no exaggeration to say that without smaller offshore financial centres many developing countries would not secure key funding for project finance, which makes a substantial improvement to the lives of some of the most vulnerable global citizens. Furthermore, the financial action task force gives many IFCs a positive assessment in meeting its 49 rigorous recommendations on anti-money laundering and terrorism finance. Centres such as the Channel Islands perform better in fighting financial crime compared even with bigger countries such as France, Italy, the US or—dare I say it?— the United Kingdom.

Finally, the UK’s Crown dependencies are often accused of being fiscally unsustainable. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The debate within the UK Government has, naturally, been framed by events surrounding the collapse of Iceland’s banking system. When the Icelandic banks imploded in September 2008, it quickly became apparent that the contagion would spread to British savers and ultimately to British taxpayers. Furthermore, the role of the Isle of Man as a core financial intermediary between British savers and Icelandic borrowers illustrated the UK’s exposure to offshore centres.

However, the subsequent Treasury review went some way towards allaying the two main concerns. In particular, the worries over the fiscal sustainability of UK Crown dependencies proved to be massively overstated. Throughout the years, IFCs such as Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, have amassed large budget surpluses while actively diversifying their tax base, as Foot recommended. Indeed, the Foot report commented on the fact that none of Britain’s Crown dependencies has taken on significant levels of borrowing.

It is important that the G20 summit in Korea later this year is made aware of the beneficial role that small IFCs play in the global economy. Above all, we must stand up to misinformed or narrow views of the valuable contributions that small IFCs can offer to the world economy in terms of liquidity, efficiency, investment and economic growth. Let us make no mistake: ensuring that the voices of small IFCs are heard in Korea is very much in our national interest. If we look at the example of Jersey and its positive effect on the wider UK economy, we see that the island provides a conduit through which mobile capital from around the world can be aggregated and invested, primarily here in London.