Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Lloyd Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
Fly-tipping and illegal waste sites are a blight in many parts of the country. The Chancellor announced additional funding in the Budget for enforcement activities. The Environment Secretary recently announced a review of waste crime, and we will follow the results of that closely.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Mel Stride
The issue that the hon. Gentleman identifies is an important element of the tax avoidance that has been happening in our country. The vast majority of people pay the correct level of tax, but there have been schemes, such as the disguised remuneration schemes to which he refers, through which essentially very little tax indeed has been paid. The Government believe that that is wrong and that we should act to clean up the arrangements. We have given individuals until April 2019 to do exactly that. On the support that he mentions, HMRC’s door is of course always open for individuals in that situation to have discussions. I would urge all those individuals to make contact with HMRC to find a sensible way forward.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]
Stephen Lloyd ExcerptsTuesday 24th April 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 View all Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2018 - (24 Apr 2018)
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a salient point. Given that the range of interest rates for a number of companies that offer equity release is really quite considerable, does he agree that one of the advantages of the advice going through an independent body is that those who are offering better and lower interest rates for consumers are more likely to receive custom?
Crispin Blunt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree. He will note the very distinguished role that his predecessor played in the whole business of promoting equity release. It ought to be a really major option given the construction of people’s resources and where they sit on the scale of property ownership in the UK. We need to be clear about how important an asset it is and how important it is to make sure that this industry has the opportunity to give the best possible service to people in their life plans.
Consumers must obtain qualified financial and independent legal advice before they confirm their decision to go ahead and purchase any equity release product. Guarantees include the right to remain in the property for life or until moving into long-term care. Another key safeguard provided by members of the Equity Release Council is the “no negative equity” guarantee, whereby the repayment of the loan is never greater than the value of the home.
A major reason why the single financial guidance body signpost should include housing wealth is the growth in the equity release sector. Homeowners released £3 billion worth of equity in 2017, with 37,000 new customers signing up for equity release products for the first time.
Stephen Lloyd
You make a salient point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here for two hours, so I agreed with a lot of what you said.
I am glad that we are finally concluding our consideration of the Bill. I rise to speak to amendment (a) to new clause 9, as well to new clause 7, amendment (a) to amendment 10 and amendment 34. The Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled, but we believe that they do not go far enough.
The Bill as introduced in the other place had three major flaws. First, the single financial guidance body had no explicit function to protect consumers. Secondly, the Government missed an opportunity to ban cold calling by claims management companies, as they had promised to do in their manifesto. The ban should also have extended to other financial products. Thirdly, there were no safeguards to ensure that people received financial guidance before they accessed or transferred their pension benefits.
I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleague in the other place, Lord Sharkey, whose amendments to the Bill paved the way for the concessions that we have today. I know that he and others from across the political divide have been lobbying Ministers intensely behind the scenes. It would have been nice if the concessions had come earlier in the proceedings, but there we go.
My support for the concessions is not absolute. In particular, under clause 34, claims management companies must act as though all UK phone numbers are registered with the Telephone Preference Service. As the House will be aware, however, the TPS has proven to be somewhat ineffectual. The Information Commissioner’s Office received more than 11,000 reports of cold calls from people on the TPS register last year. We believe that the Financial Conduct Authority has more teeth to enforce a ban on cold calling by claims management companies. For that reason, we support new clause 8, which would put Lord Sharkey’s amendments back into the Bill. The other amendments to new clause 9 would have a similar effect, allowing the FCA to police the ban on pensions cold calling.
Government new clause 9 allows Ministers to ban pensions cold calling and, if they do not, they must lay a statement before Parliament each year. Although I would love to name and shame Ministers every year until a ban comes into effect, I would rather that they just got on with it. Amendment (a) to the new clause would make it a legal requirement for the Government to ban cold calling, rather than just an optional extra.
New clause 4 allows the Government to ban cold calling in relation to any other financial services product after receiving advice from the SFGB. I welcome the amendment, but Lord Sharkey and I are worried that the SFGB’s duty to report on cold calling “from time to time” is too weak. I have tabled amendment (a) to amendment 10 to ask the SFGB to publish its report on cold calling at least every two years. This duty should not fall quietly by the wayside.
I also encourage the Government to accept amendment (b) to new clause 9, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). As my colleague, Lord Sharkey, pointed out in the other place, a ban on cold calling must also include a ban on the commercial use of data obtained by cold calling. This gives the Information Commissioner two bites at the cherry to punish companies flouting the ban.
I now turn to the two amendments that I tabled on income shocks. They would require the SFGB to improve the capability of the public to plan for sudden reductions in income. The issue was brought to my attention by the former Pensions Minister, Professor Steve Webb, and the Chartered Insurance Institute, to which I am very grateful. Too many people are unprepared for a sudden fall in income. The 2015 financial capability survey found that 26% of working-age adults have no savings to fall back on and that a further 29% have less than £1,000 saved. There are many reasons why income shocks could occur. Money Advice Service research from 2016 found that nearly three in four households receive an unexpected bill every year. One third of households have had to make an unexpected car repair or replacement, at a cost of £1,300 on average.
The “Improving Lives” Green Paper revealed that 1.8 million employees have a long-term sickness absence of four weeks or more in a year, yet statutory sick pay is worth less than three hours’ work a day on the national living wage. This problem is made worse because, as the FCA has noted, people with serious illnesses often have poor access to financial services, particularly insurance.
Amendments considered in the other place also touched on this issue. In response, the Government said that public preparedness for income shocks would be an aspect of the money guidance function. Although I welcome that commitment, I would like the Minister to go further. The Bill contains no specific direction for the body to improve preparedness for income shocks or any mechanism to measure the progress of the body in this regard.
The SFGB’s focus will be pulled in every direction. How will the Government convey to the SFGB the strategic priorities for the coming year, and how will Parliament and the public be able to scrutinise and evaluate that work? The Government have finally listened to the arguments made on these Benches and in the other place. I thank them for doing so, but they must now go the distance. They must take robust action to end the scourge of cold calling and protect millions of vulnerable people from sudden income shocks.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the earlier part of the proceedings; I was chairing a debate in Westminster Hall.
I want briefly to voice my support for amendments 8 and 9, to which I have added my name, and also for new clause 8, in my name, which effectively repeats amendment 42 as proposed by Lord Sharkey in the other place. As Members will know, that amendment was withdrawn on the solid understanding of a promise by the Minister in the Lords who said that her officials were working through the detail of a ban on cold calling. She went on to say that the Government would bring forward amendments to this House to implement that ban. Plainly, they have not done so.
I am not quite sure why the Government have backtracked on what seemed to be such an obvious and solid promise. It might have seemed that focusing on the role of the Information Commissioner and Ofcom was the easy option, but, with all due respect to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), the kind of cold calling that innocent people are being subjected to every day is actually a cold, calculated business strategy; it is not only an issue about the misuse of personal data, important though that may be.
This Bill is supposed to be designed to ensure that people are protected and that the financial decisions that they make are taken after careful consideration and access to independent guidance. Why on earth are the Government reneging on their promise to eliminate cold calling for commercial purposes, the aim of which is to bounce people into decision making and deny them the time for proper, careful consideration and access to good guidance? New clauses 3 and 4 simply will not do the trick. People may well see them as a deception—an attempt by the Government to fool people into thinking that they are taking action when they are not really doing so at all. Everyone knows that it is a complete nuisance and underhand practice designed to entrap consumers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Lloyd Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
Start-up businesses involved in online shopping are able to avail themselves of the full range of support for any start-up business. There is no specific regime for online shopping businesses.
Stephen Lloyd
Thank you, Mr Speaker. An elderly couple in my constituency, Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, are about to lose their home. They have an interest-only mortgage with Santander, which does not allow mortgages for people over 75, although the Nationwide allows them for people up to 85. Will the Minister help me to persuade Santander so that Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald do not lose their home in the coming weeks?
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Stephen Lloyd ExcerptsMonday 18th December 2017
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2018 View all Finance Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 18 December 2017 - (18 Dec 2017)
Mel Stride
Conservative Members believe that it is better for commercial organisations to be left to run their own businesses. They tend to do it rather better than Ministers, dare I say—although I think I could be quite handy at running a bank or two; who knows?
The issue of bank closures is very important. We are working hard to reinvigorate our post offices and to ensure that the banking facilities that they provide—which are available, typically, to more than 90% of personal and business customers—are promoted in all the 11,500 branches in the United Kingdom.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
A constituent who came to my community surgery on Saturday made a simple suggestion that I thought might well work. Banks face structural challenges, and many are closing, especially in rural areas. Why do the Government not encourage three or four banks to work together to establish a single branch in an area where there are currently no branches? Such a collegiate approach would solve the banking problems of rural areas in particular.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting idea, but I would argue that that is already effectively in practice in the form of the post office: post offices are able to deal with the customers of the major banks, to take cash, and to offer banking services—albeit not the full range, but certainly the most basic and most important to local communities—and, as I said earlier, there are more than 11,500 of them across the UK.
Stephen Lloyd
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative party continues to cut corporation tax aggressively, but that perhaps next year rather than cutting it still further it might take that money to ensure that the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—get a fair transition payment?
Peter Dowd
There are many, many calls on the taxpayer, and that is one of them. The Government would do well to pay attention to the exhortations of the hon. Gentleman.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Stephen Lloyd ExcerptsMonday 11th December 2017
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2018 View all Finance Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Dowd
I will come back to each hon. Gentleman in a moment.
All of this is directly linked to the Government’s cuts to local authority budgets, which has meant a 40% reduction in resources for early intervention to support children and families. Central Government funding has also been cut by 55% over the past seven years, representing a cost of about £1.7 billion. The message from the Conservatives is quite clear: if you are a banker, you can expect a handout, but if you are a child at risk, do not expect a hand-up—you are on your own.
Despite the recent revelations in the Paradise papers, there are few serious avoidance measures. The UK accounts for 17% of the global market for offshore services, and the UK is at the heart of a network of offshore tax havens that aid and abet tax avoidance across the globe; yet the Government continue to ignore the Labour party’s calls for a public register of the information already provided by overseas territories or to take any meaningful action to tackle tax avoidance. Similarly, there is nothing in the Bill to address the huge resource crisis that HMRC is facing and the effect of that crisis on its ability to tackle tax avoidance and bring tax dodgers to justice.
Stephen Lloyd
I want to enhance exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree it was absolutely appalling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government completely ignored the 5,000 headteachers who said their schools are desperate for more money? The Tories have ignored them.
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman is right. The only people to whom the Government seem to pay attention are the DUP and right-wing Tories.
The bottom line is that, since 2010, HMRC’s staffing levels have been reduced by 17%. The Bill creates even more powers for revenue and customs officers, with even more work, but very little if any resource to go with it.
Gareth Thomas
I would always commend the work of a Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and if the hon. Lady agrees with my hon. Friend, I welcome that. I commend the Government for setting up the Taylor review in the first place, but we clearly need radical measures to tackle the problem that it identified.
The context to my second broad point is that in all but a handful of cases, the major players in markets—particularly markets where there are fewer businesses operating—are plcs, owned by shareholders in the UK and abroad. Too often regulators treat this business form as the default, whereas in other European countries markets have a mix of plcs, publicly owned businesses, co-operatives, mutuals and social sector firms.
How might the Government use this Finance Bill to rectify those two broad problems? First, I hope that Ministers will find the courage to recognise that if productivity is to improve, workers and staff will have to drive that change. Basic measures such as a significantly higher living wage are essential, as is creating disincentives for businesses to opt for Uber-style employment practices. At the moment, there is too often too little incentive for the employee to go the extra mile, as they are unlikely to benefit directly from the extra profits that innovation and higher productivity might deliver.
This Finance Bill could have been the moment for that to change, and indeed even at this late stage I hope it will be, so let me offer the Minister the example of France, where businesses with 50 employees or more have to set aside 5% of their profits as a reward for their staff. If those who are helping to generate profits know they are going to share in them—if they know it is not just the chief executive and the rest of the executive team who are going to benefit—their motivation and commitment to helping the business prosper might just be a little stronger.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—because I share his view that businesses in which employees have a say and a stake tend to be more productive; they tend to be better at incentivising their staff and channelling workers’ ideas and talents. Indeed, a 2007 Treasury review found that employee ownership can boost productivity by as much as 2.5% over the long run. So, as the hon. Gentleman asked, why are there no further tax incentives to encourage genuine employee share ownership?
The Government should revisit the idea of compulsory employee representatives on company boards, mirroring the success of Germany and Sweden, where employees have sat on boards for decades. Given that the idea was in the Prime Minister’s personal manifesto when she ran for leader of the Conservative party and that a significant number of Conservative MPs backed that manifesto, and given that we on the Opposition Benches support employee representation on boards, I suggest that there is a majority in the House willing to vote for such a measure if only the Government could find the courage to act. Why not, at the very least, have more favourable tax treatment for firms that are employee-owned? The hon. Gentleman also touched on that point extremely well.
Ministers must also overhaul the regulation of markets and recognise that key markets have become too uncompetitive and, in a number of cases, oligopolistic. This Bill could have begun the process of changing that. Let me give two examples. Banking and energy have both had highly critical regulator investigations, noting the lack of innovation and the excess profits in crucial consumer markets. Where is the commitment to create diverse and vibrant markets in those areas, with the plc model no longer favoured over other business forms such as building societies, mutuals and co-operatives? I suspect that regulators know that there simply is not the political will on the Treasury Bench to confront the Institute of Directors’ insistence that big plc businesses know best.
The Social Market Foundation is not necessarily a think-tank that we on these Benches would reach for first when it publishes a report, but it has recently produced an interesting interim report on the lack of competition in key markets. The Innogy/SSE merger is just the latest example in the energy sector of the trend towards even more uncompetitive markets. If it goes ahead, it will lead to two big firms dominating the energy market. It should be blocked by the competition authorities, and it would be good to see Ministers encouraging that to happen. We also need a new generation of energy co-operatives, mutuals and municipal businesses encouraged to put consumers in the driving seat in the energy market, holding real economic power in that market, and keeping the profit from the generation of energy in local communities.
In many industries there are, in theory, ombudsman services, able to support consumers to seek redress from large businesses offering poor customer service. In practice, such ombudsman services often have limited powers and limited ability to enforce any redress they suggest. What is needed now is a proper champion for consumers, with the teeth to hold businesses to account. A consumer ombudsman with class-action powers and the information-gathering ability to match has always been opposed by big business groups in this country, but it is needed to help the consumer stand up to powerful big businesses when their concerns are ignored.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the case of the consumers taking action against Bovis Homes for shoddy building work, which has recently attracted some media attention; they are having to crowdfund the funding for court action. If there was a strong consumer ombudsman, those people who have moved into Bovis homes that are badly in need of further work would not be having to raise their own funds; instead, they could have turned to that ombudsman to take their case forward.
The truth is that markets need robust competition, and big plc businesses need strong challenges from other types of business. When 85% of all current accounts are held in just five big banks, of course it is no surprise that the regulator should find that there is not enough innovation in the retail banking sector. I therefore gently ask Ministers why they are committed to a long-term future for RBS as just another private sector bank. Why not turn it into a mutual, or a new building society, to challenge what would then be just four privately owned plc-style businesses?
Why are we not learning from the USA and Germany in encouraging more regional, mutually owned savings and investment banks that are focused on driving long-term investment—perhaps the patient capital that the hon. Member for North West Hampshire referred to—rather than on short-term dividends for shareholders, which are then used to justify ever-higher levels of executive pay? With sub-prime lending on the rise, and with the UK having the largest and fastest-growing consumer credit market in Europe—mostly, sadly, in high-cost options—it is difficult to understand why Ministers and regulators alike do so little to champion responsible finance operators such as community banks and credit unions.
On the point about credit unions, I welcome the limited moves in the Budget to help credit unions to expand, but I wonder why Ministers are not considering a wider package of reforms of the objectives and powers of credit unions, to allow for more innovation in services and in particular to enable them to provide a full retail banking offer, including in areas such as insurance and secured car lending. Why is there not more help for credit unions to market their low-cost credit offer to ordinary working people? If the Treasury were minded to take such action, that would bring UK credit union legislation into line with best practice in America, Canada and Australia. As the balance within the financial markets shifts farther and farther away from unsecured personal loans and cash savings, credit unions need the freedom to be able to rework their offer, and, as I understand it, legislation would be necessary to enable that to happen. I therefore encourage the Minister and his colleagues to consider that question sympathetically.
Lastly, I want to raise the issue of funding for public services. Sadly, there was no mention in the Budget of extra resources for policing. In my London borough, we have seen a reduction of 170 police officers since 2010. The recent terrorist incidents, which the whole House is familiar with, and the concerns of senior police officers that more resources need to be put into community policing—to ensure, among other things, that intelligence can be obtained about future attacks—should surely have prompted the Treasury to make additional funding available for policing.
Stephen Lloyd
Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the armed services were not even mentioned in the Budget, either generally or in relation to the pay and salary of their staff?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, and I agree with him. He also made a point earlier that many Members have raised before, when he expressed disappointment at the paltry level of additional funding for schools. Similarly, we have heard about the scale of cuts to local authorities such as Harrow, which has lost some £83 million over the past four years. The council is facing huge difficulties in meeting the demand for increased children’s services, for housing people who are homeless and for meeting the growing social care challenge in our borough. Even at this late stage, I encourage Conservative Members to press Ministers for more investment in public services. Brutally, this was a grim Budget, and the Bill holds out no hope for anything better.
Equitable Life
Stephen Lloyd Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I apologise for being a few minutes late at the beginning of the debate. It is a pleasure to co-sponsor it with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I would like to compliment the latter on being as active during the last Government as he has been during this Government to fight the Equitable Life pensions corner. I pay tribute to him for that.
Many have spoken today, and this issue has been going on throughout the term of this Parliament and for many years before that. I am keen not to repeat what others have said. Let me make it clear what we are asking for through this debate, which is for
“the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.”
That wording was deliberate. We recognised, as we always recognised on the all-party parliamentary group, that we inherited a catastrophic economic situation so that providing the full amount of money would cause real problems. I believe that we have been reasonable and sensible all the way through. We understand the challenges faced by the Government, and the motion, as I have clarified, recognises that. We are fully aware of the challenges with our own economy and the global economy, so we are not asking for everything appropriate to be paid immediately. Rather, we advocate achieving doing that over the next few years as the economy recovers, which is fair and reasonable.
Ann Abraham was the parliamentary ombudsman all those years ago, producing the final report in 2008. She said:
“The central story of this report is that this robust system of regulation was not, in respect of the Society, implemented appropriately—that is, consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected”.
All of us who are present today, as well as the 200 or so members of the all-party parliamentary group, recognise that the ombudsman herself saw that the regulatory framework had failed, and we understand the financial challenges. However, the reason we are here, and the reason the all-party parliamentary group, with the support of EMAG, has not stopped lobbying and campaigning throughout the current Parliament—I was privileged to become its secretary literally within weeks of being elected in 2010—is that this is a matter of not just probity, but honour. The regulator failed, and this was Government regulation.
Mr Mark Williams
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a matter of honour, but it is also a matter of urgency. He is making his case in a very modest way. May I invite him to endorse what was said earlier about the urgent need to settle individual claims—I think that the figure we heard was £115 million—and to address the issue of elderly people whose cases may well not be settled before they die unless we act now?
Stephen Lloyd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of people are now reaching an age when something needs to be done extremely quickly. A constituent of mine, Billy Murphy, a variety artist for 70 years, had been lobbying me patiently, and I had been supporting him, until he sadly passed away in January. He had been making contributions for many years, and he was a very good example of the people to whom my hon. Friend and many others have referred: decent, hard-working people who were prudent and put money aside. Those people have lost out, not because of their own inadequacy —not because they took a punt, or played the stock market—but because they invested in a well-established and respected pensions company that was regulated by the Government. It was regulated by the Government: that is the whole point, and that is why we as a nation, whichever Government are in power, have a real responsibility to do what is right.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I am a former Equitable Life policyholder myself. I had a company pension policy. I distinctly remember questioning the person who sold me the policy about how Equitable Life was regulated, and being told that there was no chance of its failing because it was acting well within the regulations that existed at the time.
Stephen Lloyd
That is a very important point. The whole system—from the perspectives of finance, prudence and proper rule of contract law—fell apart under Equitable Life. It completely collapsed. When something like that happens in a country like the United Kingdom, the duty of the Government, irrespective of some of the broader issues, is to provide proper compensation, because otherwise the whole fabric becomes extremely vulnerable.
I find it bewildering that none of the senior managers of the old Equitable Life—and none of the people who were in charge of the marketing side or the investment side—went to jail. If I, as a Member of Parliament, find that bewildering, I can imagine the profound frustration that so many of our constituents must feel, given that they were doing the right thing. This was a company that was regulated, regulated within an inch of its life—that was the whole point of the sector—yet, through no fault of their own, it collapsed, and, a few years later, the parliamentary ombudsman said that there had been a systemic failure of regulation. All those senior managers and executives, whom we all knew, must have been aware of what was happening.
I greatly appreciated what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). When she bought an Equitable Life pension which she kept for a few years, all the marketing suggested that the company was rock solid and the purchase almost a steal. She was told “You really must invest in this.” Those people must have known what was happening, and I fail to understand why they were not penalised.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My hon. Friend is putting his case very articulately. When Mr Ralph Williams, along with a large group of my constituents, came to see me about this whole matter, one of the points that they made most strongly was that they were nearly all elderly. According to a parliamentary answer that I received on 10 February, only £990 million of the £1.5 billion total has been paid out. The Government are profiting from people who are dying at this very moment. Is it not only fair for everyone, including the annuitants, to be paid whatever the Government have agreed, in full, now?
Stephen Lloyd
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to it. People are dying: there are no two ways about it, because of the age profile.
Another constituent of mine, David Stevens—a distinguished teacher for many years in Eastbourne, a former mayor and, as it happens, a Conservative councillor, who is also a very decent chap—lost out hugely in the Equitable Life debacle. He lost just under 80% of the worth of the pension in which he had invested for all those years.
This issue is about real people. That is why we are here, and why the all-party parliamentary group receives so much cross-party support. It is not just that we all know many constituents who are suffering and have experienced a profound loss despite having done the right thing, and despite being led to believe that the industry was heavily regulated. As I stressed at the beginning of my speech, I have believed—as others do—that this is a point of honour ever since I was elected in 2010, which is why I joined the all-party parliamentary group.
In a civilised country like the United Kingdom, people are often rightly encouraged to save and be prudent so that they are less of a burden on the general taxpayer. Hundreds of thousands of people did that on the basis of an absolute assurance that this was a properly regulated industry, and then lost out through no fault of their own. I have always believed that senior figures in the Treasury must have known that Equitable Life was wobbly, but many people have received 80% less than they should have received, and that is unacceptable.
I was delighted to speak today. I hope that both the Government and the Opposition will provide some succour.
Robert Neill
I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but he misunderstands what I was saying. Regardless of party, there is an obligation on Government, and I must say that the 13 years for which there was a Government of which he was a distinguished member cannot be entirely ignored. We all must pick up what we inherit from our predecessors, of whatever party, and we must put them right. That is the key and that is why I agree that having done the history we need to move on and find a sensible way forward.
Stephen Lloyd
One of our profound frustrations was that the ombudsman made the ruling under the previous Government, which was sitting on a heck of a lot more money than this Government.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. This should all have been sorted out before the Government came on to the scene. The question of who was to blame and why ultimately requires almost a Crichel Down sort of approach—we must all accept responsibility for what happens under regulators who were not politicians. We must accept that it was done and must now resolve it. Had it been resolved sooner, there might have been more money around to deal with the issue. However, given where we are now and that the economy is improving, we can certainly do justice to people through a sensible series of staged payments, starting with those who are in the greatest need and who are most vulnerable. It is reasonable to ensure in the course of the Parliament that proper justice is done.
Let me give a sense of the impact on individuals. I have one constituent who makes the point that having invested sensibly his income has effectively been cut by some £20,000 a year. To a pensioner, that is an awful lot of money and they have had to downsize from their long-established family home. Another constituent has an acknowledged loss of £61,000 and is some £47,000 adrift with the payments out. That is not fair for somebody who has worked hard and is now in no position to supplement their income for the future.
Another very elderly gentleman had to wait some 18 months—because, frankly, of ineptitude and lost correspondence—to even receive acknowledgement of his entitlement. He should not have to come to his Member of Parliament to escalate these matters. That is something that any sensible and well-run compensation scheme should deal with as a matter of course. I am sure we all hope eventually to overcome the difficulties for our constituents, but they should not be happening in the first place.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my neighbour the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). I am proud to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, which has shown how powerfully we can campaign when we do so collectively and collaboratively on a cross-party basis. I congratulate the co-chairs and officers for leading us in that endeavour.
I start by welcoming the progress that has been made. I remember the early meetings that took place towards the end of the last Parliament and the frustration that, at that stage, there was no compensation at all. We finally got the announcement of compensation, and I welcome the fact that payments surpassing £1 billion have now been made to 896,367 policyholders. That clearly represents great progress, but the clear message from the House today is that it is not enough. This debate itself shows that this is not the end of the matter, however convenient it might be for the Treasury—either side of the election—were that to be the case.
I strongly support the motion today and I shall carry on campaigning on behalf of my constituents as part of the group. About 40 of my constituents have raised this matter with me over the past few years, and many have told me of the hardship that they have experienced. Virtually none of them are wealthy people. They are people whose modest and very well planned retirement incomes have been drastically affected, and that has had a huge impact on their quality of life at a time when they should not have to face that and can do nothing about it. I pay tribute to all of them, and to the way in which they have campaigned as members of the Equitable Members Action Group. They include Ray and Marjorie Dunn, who have worked closely with me and played an important role in bringing people together. It has been a pleasure to work with them and all my constituents.
Stephen Lloyd
Would my hon. Friend also acknowledge the outstanding work that the members of the Equitable Members Action Group have done for us in Parliament? They have kept us informed and provided a secretary, and they have ensured that we pulled together on their behalf.
Greg Mulholland
My hon. Friend makes an important point. EMAG has done a wonderful job. Working together, inside and outside the House, has been an exemplary way of getting positive change.
One thing has not been raised in this debate so far and I am pleased to raise it strongly, as a member of the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament. One contributor today said it was disgraceful that neither the previous Government nor this Government had fully abided by the clear view or the will of the ombudsman, because they thought, “What’s the point?” I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look at the Public Administration Committee’s reports in this Parliament, because we are calling for a radical overhaul, part of which should be that Governments are bound by such decisions so we would never have this nonsense.
We have an absurd situation, because we are talking about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, with the responsibility to Parliament. The Public Administration Committee has a view, as the Select Committee that oversees the ombudsman, and it wants a radical overhaul, The ombudsman’s office wants a radical overhaul, as does the ombudsman herself and the public, but we cannot have one because Parliament cannot reform its own ombudsman—only the Government can do so because it requires primary legislation. That is absurd and we need to find a way to enable Parliament to introduce legislation for matters that are parliamentary and not to do with the Government. I urge the Government in the Parliament—whoever is in government—to listen finally to that, to let go and allow Parliament to reform its own ombudsman in a way that is so clearly needed.
I am glad that this Government have come up with more than Sir John Chadwick proposed, which we all strongly said was not enough. I am also pleased with the campaign launched in October 2013 to find the 400,000 lost victims of the Equitable Life scandal. There are now approximately 142,000 policyholders who are due a payment but the scheme has not yet been able to trace or validate their address, so I hope that work will continue. This is taking too long, given that these people are in their retirement, need this money now and simply cannot wait. Tragically, some of them have died, and some will die without having had the chance to get that money they are clearly owed as a result of the maladministration and lack of regulation.
What is particularly galling is that there has been a double failure of regulation: the failure to regulate the banks properly led to the catastrophic collapse in the banking sector, which then led to vast amounts of money going to bail out those banks, and that is one reason there is not the money in the pot to compensate these people. That is a bitter pill to swallow, which is why there is no justification for not backing today’s motion and not coming forward, finally, after all these years, with the solution that is clearly the right and moral one.
Let me give an example to illustrate that point. After the giving of £620 million to 37,000 annuitants, 945,000 Equitable Life policyholders have shared the remaining £775 million, which of course is the 22% of their losses. Yet when we look at how much money has gone into the banking sector—we still have publicly owned banks—we see that there is a discrepancy that simply does not sit right and must be addressed.
We must finally draw this matter to a close. We must finally see a fair and final resolution. I share the passion of right hon. and hon. Members in not wanting to have to debate that; we must not be debating this issue at the end of the next Parliament. I hope we shall see some progress in the Budget. It is realistic to say that it will be some and not all—the latter would not be realistic—but it absolutely must be in the next Parliament. Let us now have a cross-party convention, let us take this out of the electioneering and have a genuine, firm policy commitment that the next Government will honour this pledge, as should have been done. It is an obligation on the British state, an obligation on this House and an obligation on this Government and the next one. It is an obligation that must finally be honoured.
Finance Bill
Stephen Lloyd Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans
Thank you for that interjection, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry that I treated such a serious topic as slavery in a light-hearted manner.
I agree with my hon. Friend: these are hard-fought employment rights. I do not want to hark back to the past, but although the Conservatives like to say theirs is a progressive party, every piece of social legislation in this country, from votes for women to increased maternity and paternity rights to the minimum wage and even the state pension, has been brought about by Labour and by people having to fight for them. To me, it seems frivolous for those rights to be given away. As a former trade union official working in financial services, I do not believe that people were deterred from employing staff because of the rights they had. Maternity rights are accepted across the board. If someone goes on maternity leave, people believe they have that right, and it is shocking that the Government think this can be sold off for 30 pieces of silver.
John Cridland, director general of the CBI, said:
“I think this is a niche idea and not relevant to all businesses,”
again backing up my argument that this is policy made on the fly. It has not been thought out. It seems to me that the share schemes and share save schemes work very well without people having to trade their employment rights. Employers who have introduced a share save scheme or given shares to their employees do so as a reward for good business practices, not to buy off potentially bad employees.
There is a little thing that we should learn in this House: it is called trust. If an employer asks me to sell my rights, I will straight away be suspicious; I will always work hard, but I will not be industrious in the way I should, and I am going to ask myself questions such as, “Is there a question mark over my competence if he is willing to trade my hard-fought employment rights for shares in his company?”
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I have sympathy with some of the Labour party’s concerns on this issue, but having listened for an hour or so one thing occurs to me. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no employee will be forced to do this—they will voluntarily choose to do so or not? That is important.
Tourism (VAT)
Stephen Lloyd Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Although I understand that at this stage the focus must be on accommodation and visitor attractions, it would be wrong not to pursue the Treasury and the Minister to try to ensure that we get a better deal for our tourism industry and the wider population we represent.
It might be helpful if I gave a little information from the British Hospitality Association and the Cut Tourism VAT campaign. The Government have asserted that they cannot afford to take a loss on VAT income. It is worth pointing out, however, that the direct loss of VAT incurred by a reduction for visitor accommodation and attractions would be £1.2 billion. Half of that loss would be made good within the first year via savings from social security benefits—more people would be employed—and increased tax yields, principally from employment-related taxes. The year 1 deficit would therefore be £645 million.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and for securing this debate. Professor Blake said that he felt that a VAT cut would be
“one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, means of generating GDP gains at low cost to the exchequer”
that he had seen, under the Treasury’s own model. Furthermore, a week or so ago I had a comprehensive meeting with VisitBritain and was reminded that such a reduction would create 80,000 new jobs. That would make a significant difference and neutralise the cost to the Treasury, exactly as the hon. Lady says.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. It is worth pointing out that Professor Blake used the Treasury’s model for the research that resulted in his recommendation that the focus of a VAT cut be on accommodation and visitor attractions.
I would like to make a little more progress. I would like the Minister to clarify whether the Treasury accepts the figures resulting from its modelling, and whether it contests that this measure would be revenue-neutral and bring a long-term benefit, in terms of tourism numbers, tax revenue and job creation. If the Minister has figures that dispute that, I think everybody would be grateful to see them.
I would like to set the issue in the EU context. Even if the Government concede that the cost would not be excessive, they frequently argue that if such a cut was granted to the tourism sector, every other industry would be queuing up to get a similar cut. That is simply not the case. The EU has already established that the tourism industry is one of very few labour-intensive services that would be eligible for a reduced rate of VAT. Strikingly, the vast majority of other EU member states, which appreciate the importance of the industry, have exercised that right, but not the UK. As was pointed out in a report by Deloitte in 2011, the UK is the only country in the EU that does not apply a reduced rate of VAT to some part of its tourism sector.
The UK is one of only four of the EU’s 27 member states that do not take advantage of the reduced VAT rate on visitor accommodation, one of only 14 that apply the full VAT rate to admissions to amusement parks, and one of only nine that apply the full rate to admissions to cultural attractions. Thirteen countries, including Ireland, also have a reduced VAT rate for restaurant meals. That is not a record of which the UK can be proud. We hear much from the Government about how they are constrained and restrained by Brussels; here is a perfect example of where the Government have the right to be flexible, but they have so far refused to exercise that right.
Other countries are a rich seam of information on the benefits of a cut. It is no coincidence that after such measures are implemented, countries tend to stick with them. If we compare Ireland and the UK, we see a tale of two Governments. The introduction of a 9% VAT rate for tourism-related business and services made 2013 the most successful year since the financial crisis for Irish tourism, with visitor numbers up 10% and more than 9,000 jobs created.
Consumer Rights Bill
Stephen Lloyd Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
Trading standards at a local level are extremely important. It is not a statutory obligation, and councils vary in their support for it, but it is absolutely crucial. This is where much of the enforcement action will be eventually taken. At national level, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we put £13 million a year into the National Trading Standards Board, which provides training support, for example, and helps trading standards authorities to co-ordinate activities. That is often required, because an abuse can occur across borough boundaries. He is absolutely right: local trading standards officers are crucial in implementing much of this legislation.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on consumer affairs and trading standards. In my constituency and around the country, trading standards do a tremendous amount of very good work, but one of their challenges is that their budget depends on local authorities and can be patchy. I appreciate that, as a result of the streamlining measures in the Bill, much of the enforcement will be done by trading standards. I think that the Bill will make that easier and make a real difference. Will the Secretary of State or his officials meet me and some senior trading standards colleagues so that we can work out how that can be done more efficiently or better, or even find ways to squeeze more income from the Government to help them to do that?
Vince Cable
I know very well my hon. Friend’s interest in this area and the work that he has done on it. He has made Eastbourne an exemplar of good practice. I accept that local authority budgets are squeezed, and sometimes trading standards are squeezed relatively severely. We can help with that by helping to rationalise their operations, training and cross-border co-operation. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and others, cross-party or otherwise, to see how we can progress this.
A further set of measures in the Bill relates to consumer law enforcement. We will consolidate and simplify the investigatory powers of consumer law enforcers—this takes us back to the discussion we have just had on local trading standards officers—into one generic set to make it easier for enforcers and businesses to understand what powers can be used and in what circumstances. We estimate that that measure alone will save businesses around £40 million during the next 10 years. We will also make it easier for trading standards to collaborate across local authority boundaries to tackle the kind of rogues we saw in a recent scam drawing people throughout the country into costly and unnecessary driveway repairs.
Vince Cable
As I tried to explain when describing the reforms relating to deficient goods, repairs must be done the first time round. If they cannot be done in a reasonable time, there will be cash compensation. Previously that was ambiguous and unsatisfactory. There will be either a repair or cash compensation, and that will be much clearer than it has been in the past.
Let me talk about the provisions in the Bill that relate to competition law and the role of private actions. Competition is good for growth and one of the pillars of a vibrant economy, so a key part of the work is tackling anti-competitive behaviour. The European Commission—I quoted some examples a few moments ago—has estimated that cartels can raise prices by between 20% and 35%. Despite the strong competition framework that the Government are putting in place, the Office of Fair Trading has shown that businesses believe that the current regime for private actions is too slow and costly. As a result, businesses and consumers rarely get redress when they have been harmed by anti-competitive behaviour. In 10 years, there has been only one collective action case in this country, and only one 10th of 1% of the consumers who were eligible signed up to it.
We have tried to strike a careful balance. We do not want an American-style system of prodigious and constant litigation, which would be costly and benefit only lawyers. None the less, we believe that there is some imbalance in the current system that needs to be redressed. We will try to discourage parties from engaging in costly court cases by encouraging alternative dispute resolution. We propose reforming the Competition Appeal Tribunal by introducing a fast-track regime so that small and medium-sized companies can get quicker and cheaper access.
For example, let us take a car garage that relies on spare parts from a large supplier that has started withholding supplies to drive up prices, showing cartel-type behaviour. Previously, the garage would have had to take costly legal action in the High Court, possibly bankrupting itself in the process—it is a small company up against a big one. Under the Bill, the garage could take the case to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which could swiftly issue an injunction resulting in the supplier having to restart its supply.
We will also introduce an opt-out collective action regime for consumers and businesses that have been harmed by anti-competitive practice, with safeguards to ensure that cases are appropriate and merit that approach.
Stephen Lloyd
I am grateful for what the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is doing in relation to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As a result of the cost of legal intervention, numerous small businesses have been unable to challenge anti-competitive behaviour, so I applaud that and think that it will make a real difference for small businesses. Has the Department made any impact assessment of the number of cases it anticipates over the next three to five years and, if not, is it in the pipeline so that we can get some sort of idea?
Vince Cable
I cannot give any figures, but we are starting from virtually zero, so there will almost certainly be an increase. We will have to conduct an impact assessment as part of the regulatory regime in Government. I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend more facts and figures if I can unearth them.
In conclusion, the Bill represents a radical and far-reaching set of reforms designed to streamline the law, making it clearer and more accessible. It will enhance consumer rights and deregulate for business. It will benefit consumers by reducing the time and cost of finding out how to deal with problems. It will protect consumers from the small print in contracts and increase the redress they get when things go wrong. It will benefit businesses by reducing the need for ongoing legal advice, and it will save legitimate businesses from losses from anti-competitive practices. The benefits are substantial. They will create more confident consumers, who in turn will be more likely to try new and innovative goods and services, which in turn will create a more responsive and vibrant UK economy.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman makes some strong points about exactly the kind of contracts that consumers get into and the kind of service standards they should expect. That the Bill will simply consolidate existing rights, rather than address some of the challenges, shows that it could go much further on such issues.
It would not take much to make a real difference to households across this country. The Money Advice Service research shows that if consumers saved just £3 a day, it would be enough to cover their average unexpected bills in a year. That may not sound like much, but for millions of British consumers who have already used up their savings or are getting into debt in dealing with the cost of living crisis created by this Government, it is a stretch. For millions of people, reducing their outgoings would also make a real difference to their financial precariousness. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated that about 4 million British families do not have enough savings to cover their rent or mortgage for more than a month, and that more than 5,000 households became homeless in the past year alone because of arrears.
I hope that the Secretary of State will at least do better than his Cabinet colleague, the Prime Minister, who denies that living standards are falling as the public pay for the cost of this Government’s policies. The Prime Minister claims that it is a matter for statisticians to argue, but I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that it is a matter on which politicians should help out. It is not our role to make decisions for consumers, but it is our role to help to make decision making easier.
We could also help with the cost of living crisis, because it is about not just job creation, but every extortionate charge to which the Government turn a blind eye or every broken market they ignore, and that all adds to the struggles that people face. Every unfair service contract term and every bad decision that consumers are duped into making is more money down the drain.
Stephen Lloyd
I hate to interrupt the hon. Lady in full powerful flow, but I want to ask her whether there is anything about the Bill that she likes, or does the whole direction of travel and everything that we are doing on the cost of living crisis, which she has mentioned about five times, mean that it is just a poor Bill?
Stella Creasy
I can safely say that I will please the hon. Gentleman by talking about the cost of living crisis an awful lot more. I said at the very start that we welcome the Bill. Our concern is that this is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to get consumer rights legislation right. There are so many challenges that the Bill does not face that it will become a missed opportunity, to the detriment of all consumers and all our constituents, who are paying the price for our failure to tackle these issues. It will have minimal impact on the problems that we are seeing every day in our constituencies. The fact that nothing in the Bill is of particular concern tells us everything we need to know about its narrow ambitions in addressing the problems that our constituents face.
Stella Creasy
I think it will help the hon. Gentleman if I go on to explain my case, but I will give way to him once more.
Stephen Lloyd
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is at least something that the coalition has brought the Bill forward? Many consumer groups and people who are involved in this area are very supportive of the Bill. That has to be a good thing. Perhaps it is a shame that the Labour party did not bring forward such legislation six, seven, eight, nine, 10 or even 15 years ago.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is again being a little uncharitable. I pointed out that consumer rights legislation in this country has had an elephantine gestation. If his argument is that something is better than nothing, when we could be aiming for the best for this country, I think that people will see the difference between the choices of the Government and the Opposition.
I want to set out our ambition today. If the hon. Gentleman is on the Committee, I encourage him to support it. We want to get the best possible consumer rights framework in this country and truly tackle the detriment that people in our communities are facing. We want to prevent problems from occuring in the first place, rather than waiting for people to be ripped off. That is the ethos that we want to see in the Bill. We know that when we do not get consumer rights right in this country, it is the poorest and the most vulnerable who pay the biggest price.
Consumer Futures and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have found that lower-income families can end up paying £19 more a week on average because they face higher charges for the same products. Their research shows that such poverty premiums can add up to 10p for every £1 that is spent by households. Poorer households in this country are subsidising richer households as a result of the levels of detriment that they face.
I will set out for the Secretary of State four questions that we believe could make the Bill better and that will be the focus of our efforts in Committee.
Interest Rate Swap Derivatives
Stephen Lloyd Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and all the supporters of this debate on raising an important issue. I also pay tribute to my Treasury Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for his detailed explanation of a complex aspect of this subject that probably not everyone understands.
This is the latest in a series of issues that has corroded, damaged and sometimes destroyed trust between banks and their customers following the payment protection insurance scandal. We should pause and consider a couple of features of the PPI scandal. It was characterised, first, by a refusal to admit that there was a problem; secondly, by a refusal to take responsibility for that problem; and finally, by a huge bill for the banks because it had taken too long to face up to those things. I wonder whether any of those lessons have really been learned given the way that this issue is being dealt with.
Like the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, I spent much of the past year serving on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards chaired by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), where we looked into the standards and culture of the banks more widely. We found a sales culture, backed by the bonus systems, going right down to branch level. The banks pushed products like this, often allied with a product that the customer wanted, namely a loan, yet sometimes the customer was not even aware that a product was being sold to them or, if they were, whether it was a voluntary agreement or something they had to accept as a condition of the loan.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman has hit on something really important, which is that the banks’ whole modus operandi was to sell products that individuals wanted and slip in the interest rate swaps underneath. I am glad that he has reminded us of that. Does he agree that it is important for these businesses to know that it has been agreed on the Floor of the House, and it is recorded in Hansard, that they will be offered compensation that aims to put them back in the position in which they would have been if there had not been a mis-sale, plus interest rates of about 8% a year?
Mr McFadden
I do agree, but there is also the question of who gets that redress and who does not.
Underneath this sales culture, we found that instead of a culture of a duty of care to the customer there was—characterised by the combining of products, often a simple product with a complex one—a culture of “buyer beware” that put the responsibility for fully understanding and being aware of all this in the customer’s lap, with, in many cases, the bank showing a lack of responsibility.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who has led this cause absolutely heroically. I am sure that Members across the House will wish to join me in saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) that I wish I could say that he had anticipated my remarks. I feel sure that his speech will stand as a landmark in terms of making this debate and these products easy to understand.
The system of money and bank credit ought to be the lifeblood of a free economy and a prosperous society, but as we have heard in this debate, and from across our constituencies, the banking system is not the servant of a free economy but has become its master, and a tyrannical master at that. Businesses in our constituencies such as Stewart Linford, furniture makers in High Wycombe, have found themselves treated utterly appallingly.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not stay his hand when he criticises the financial system for what it has done. Too often, Government Members treat the banking system gently as if to criticise it were to criticise a free-market system. It is not a free-market system. It is heavily regulated, heavily directed by the state, and awash with implicit and explicit guarantees that produce moral hazard and perverse incentives. Apart from anything else, interest rates have been unexpectedly low because of the interventions of central banks. When Andy Haldane, the executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England, went before the Treasury Committee and explained that the bond market bubble was the biggest threat to financial stability, he clearly stated that the Bank had deliberately inflated it. The fact is that the system of money and banking is state directed.
Stephen Lloyd
Given the behaviour of some of the banks, does my hon. Friend agree that the Financial Secretary and the Government should consider adding a further penalty if repayments are not made within a certain time frame?
Steve Baker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I want to make the case that I think that, in this regard, the banking system may have crossed from mis-selling into fraud.
This morning I was shown a transaction by its author that was part of a system in which a bailed-out bank hid losses of £1 billion on a £10 billion loan portfolio. It was done lawfully and it was enabled by the accounting standard of the international financial reporting standards. The way in which the IFRS accounting standard treats derivatives allows people to up-front unrealised cash flows as profit and then pay bonuses out of them. That is probably why so many of these products have been sold.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) spoke eloquently about the bonus system and the incentives it creates. The Government should look extremely carefully at what has been done with regard to the use of IFRS accounting, the incentives it creates and what that means for people who sell products and take bonuses. They should also look at whether the IFRS complies with UK company law.