Royal Bank of Scotland

Debate between Natascha Engel and Richard Burgon

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

No, because I want to give the Minister as much time as possible to respond.

It is incumbent on the Minister and the Chancellor to set out why they are moving ahead with the sale. What evidence does the Minister have that it is the right thing to do? This is the first opportunity for a full parliamentary debate on the decision of the Chancellor to privatise RBS since his announcement to the City at the Mansion House in June. He did make a statement the following day, but informing the House was clearly something of an afterthought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) clearly spelled out. At the Mansion House, the Chancellor announced a share sale even if it meant a financial loss to the taxpayer. The 5% stake sold on 3 August has already realised a loss of £1 billion, and some calculations suggest that the total losses if the entire stake is sold in this way could be about £13 billion, which is almost a third of the £45.5 billion total cost of the bail-out.

The Government have provided no real evidence of why RBS should be returned to the private sector in its previous form or why it should happen now. A 13-page report by the Rothschild Group and a two-page letter from the Governor of the Bank of England have been mentioned. The authors of the Rothschild report stressed that they had

“not sought to address the question of whether the government should sell its stake in RBS, but rather when it should do so.”

In other words, the review did not consider the full range of policy options. Will the Minister elaborate on how moving RBS shares from public to private ownership will promote financial stability, and on whether the relevant Bank of England Committee has endorsed that view? Will she publish any evidence she has received in support of that view?

It is welcome that the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, has asked to see the advice provided by UKFI to ensure that the taxpayer, as shareholder, is getting good value from this Government-owned company. I support that call. Is the timing of this sale in the interests of taxpayers or bank customers, or does the Chancellor just want to sell off another state asset quickly to make his borrowing figures look better? Was this decision taken purely for ideological reasons, or is it based on expert, independent advice? Will the Minister explain how the Chancellor arrived at his decision? In line with the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), will the Minister share the evidence, if she has any, with Members of the House?

I will turn to alternative models and structures for RBS and the future of British banking. I ask the Government to consider undertaking a full review of UK banking that questions how financial institutions have operated before and since the crash, and what other models might be considered to diversify the sector and deliver for the country by strengthening the economy.

There has been a much needed discussion of banking practices and reform over the past five years. We have had Lawrence Tomlinson’s report, Sir Andrew Large’s report on RBS’s independent lending, Sir John Vickers’ Independent Commission on Banking, and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the work of the Treasury Committee, both under the excellent leadership of the right hon. Member for Chichester, to name but a few.

Given how badly things went wrong and the problems that still exist at the bank, the question we must discuss today is how we can do it better. We need to know not only why RBS failed, but whether it is delivering for the British economy now, and, if it is not, how we can do it better.

Labour was right to bail out RBS, but how has it operated since the Government became the majority shareholder? RBS has been bailed out, but there are still major problems with its operation, as the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) indicated in his speech. It has cut more than 30,000 staff since 2008, many of whom were backroom staff on about £20,000 per year. It is closing branches faster than any other bank, and 90 of those it has closed this year were the last branch in town.

The Tomlinson report said in 2011:

“Returning RBS and Lloyds to full private sector ownership in their current form would be a return to the banking landscape of 2003, possibly with even less competition… Given the lack of any real change in the banking sector, there is nothing that will stop 2018 being the same as 2008 unless radical action is taken now.”

The Andrew Large report found that RBS was failing SMEs. He said:

“A perception has risen among some SMEs that RBS is unwilling to lend.”

I want to take this opportunity to touch on how RBS has been treating businesses. The House will recall the Backbench Business debate on 4 December last year on the Financial Conduct Authority redress scheme, in which hon. Members raised the serious concerns of businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) stated:

“The only thing that is consistent and transparent is that the banks that caused the financial crash are profiting from selling products such as interest rate hedging products, which were bought by a company in my constituency, the Flanagan Group, and have caused it great difficulty.”

Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) talked about one of his local businesses, DK Motorcycles, which had been “badly let down” by RBS, but had

“finally escaped the clutches of RBS”.

He talked about

“people from small businesses who feel bullied by their banks”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 480-84.]

Information that I have seen this week shows that the serious concerns of businesses such as Flanagan’s have not gone away. I therefore want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she will meet me, concerned MPs like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton and businesses such as the Flanagan Group in his constituency to discuss the behaviour of RBS and what can be done to resolve the situation.

That leads me to the question that was put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) of whether selling RBS in its current form represents good long-term value for the taxpayer, taking into account all the economic costs and benefits. Is the Minister aware of those who say that the low price of RBS shares represents a belief among market participants that the reforms to guarantee its future financial health have not yet been concluded? Is the Minister satisfied that all necessary steps have been taken to return RBS to a state where it will not be in trouble again? Finally, is the economy best served solely by private shareholder banking, or is there a case for a more diversified sector that includes publicly owned and directed institutions, mutuals, co-operatives, social enterprises and regionalised banking? With so many fundamental questions yet to be answered, it is right that we engage in a wider review of the UK’s financial sector that considers the case for establishing new models of banking that might better serve our economy.

In conclusion, there are many alternatives. It has been proposed from a number of quarters that RBS be broken up to deliver regional banks, including by the Tomlinson report, the New Economics Foundation, Civitas and ResPublica, as Opposition Members have mentioned. We must discuss how regional banks can help to rebalance the economy—perhaps the Chancellor took the opportunity while visiting Germany to look into that.

It is our responsibility to map out the best way forward for UK banking, so that it delivers for the electorate and the economy as a whole. That means suspending sales of shares in RBS, which give away taxpayers’ money to private shareholders. It is incumbent on the Chancellor to explain why he thinks that is the right thing to do, and that means engaging with a real review of the banking sector and alternative models that will deliver a diversified and more resilient economy. How we treat RBS now will demonstrate whether we have learned the lessons of the crisis—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reaching the conclusion of his conclusion because we are way over time and there is a full debate to follow. If he could finish his speech now, I would be grateful.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Natascha Engel and Richard Burgon

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

When I think of this Budget, I think of my constituents who will be hard hit by the measures it sets out; measures that were cheered to the rafters by the Conservative party, led in fist-pumping style by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, known to my more polite constituents as Iain Duncan Smith.

This Budget is bad for the economy and bad for the poorest, whether working or not, in my constituency and in our society. It takes money from the poorest in society and hands it to the wealthiest. Do not just take my word for it; criticism and concern has ranged from the TUC and major trade unions to Citizens Advice, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Barnardo’s, and from the Institute for Fiscal Studies to the Local Government Association and the Federation of Small Businesses. For example, Paul Johnson of the IFS has said:

“In general the more important tax credits are to someone’s income at present the less likely they are to be compensated by the higher minimum wage”—

note that he refers to the minimum wage, not the living wage—

“But the key fact is that the increase in the minimum wage simply cannot provide full compensation for the majority of losses that will be experienced by tax credit recipients. That is just arithmetically impossible.”

This Budget negatively affects a majority of the population. The IFS says that 13 million people will lose out through the freeze in benefits and tax credits. This Budget is bad for people in my constituency of Leeds East, where the cuts to tax credits will hit an overwhelming majority of families. In Leeds East there are 9,600 families with children claiming tax credits, 6,100 of whom are working families, with 12,600 children affected. The scale of the impact in my constituency and constituencies like it across the country should make Conservative Members ashamed. Sixty-seven per cent.—two thirds—of families in Leeds East receive tax credits, while 75%—three quarters—of children are in families receiving tax credits. This is an attack on the incomes of the poorest while helping the wealthiest.

Freezing benefits for four years and cutting tax credits will reduce real incomes. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation makes it clear:

“For those out of work, especially childless adults, it will further widen the distance between their incomes and what is needed to achieve an even basic standard of living. This is of course deliberate, in that the aim of the Government is to sharpen work incentives for those not currently in work.”

Citizens Advice says that

“a government serious about making significant savings to the welfare bill needs to tackle problems at the source including insecure work and failures in the housing and childcare markets...Cuts to welfare including freezing benefits for four years, lowering income disregards and work allowances, and cutting tax credits will all have a very serious impact on many people’s ability to meet day to day costs.”

I have to mention George Osborne, the Chancellor—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I say this in the spirit of helpfulness. We name Members not by their names but by their constituencies. This is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has done it, so I ask him to use the constituency or job title—“the Chancellor” will do.

[Richard Burgon]

The Chancellor’s so-called living wage is a con. He claims to be giving Britain a pay rise but his living wage premium is actually a new minimum wage undercutting the rate proposed by the Living Wage Foundation.

Quote after quote that I now do not have time to go into sets out the reality of the Government’s Budget. Many measures, as other Members have mentioned, are an attack on the hopes of young people. They include excluding under-25s from the so-called living wage, preventing young people from living independent lives by cutting their access to housing support, and abolishing student maintenance grants for the poorest and raising university fees. What we needed to hear in the Government’s Budget was a call for investment to publicly deliver affordable social housing, access to well-funded further and higher education, and new jobs and apprenticeships with better pay that would allow people to live decent and stable lives.

People in my constituency and areas like it across the country are not a priority for this ultra-Thatcherite Government. They talk about a northern powerhouse, but we need only look at what is happening with trans-Pennine electrification. They are cutting funding for infrastructure in Leeds and in the north. They talk about devolution, but I and many others fear that the real aim is to devolve the blame for the national Government’s austerity economics. We must not give up fighting against what is being done to my constituency and areas like it by this Government, who are all about siding with the rich and the powerful. I look forward to carrying on fighting, alongside Labour colleagues, campaign groups and trade unions, against this Government’s cruel plans and for a better society.