The Economy and Living Standards
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Queen’s Speech said that the stated objective of this legislative programme was to build a stronger economy. It said that it was to strengthen the economy. The Prime Minister used many of the same phrases in his speech last week, and spoke again, as the Chancellor did today, about this fabled long-term economic plan, which is a bit like a fabled unicorn: everybody knows what is meant, but no one has ever seen one. This long-term economic plan is much the same. Anyone with any common sense would assume that a long-term economic plan was predicated on substantial above-trend growth, yet the word “growth” did not appear once in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, the Prime Minister only uttered it twice: once to chide the leader of the Labour party, not unreasonably, and another time in response to an intervention from his own side. Why the coyness? Where is the plan for real growth in the economy? When one looks at what is proposed in this legislative programme and at what has come before, particularly in the Budget, one can see that, at its heart, this is still an austerity Government. Yes, there are some helpful Bills, such as the national insurance contributions Bill and, potentially, the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, but there is nothing that anyone can point to and say, “That will make a real difference in delivering growth in the economy.” Perhaps the Government think that mining tunnels under people’s homes without permission to carry fracked gas qualifies as a growth measure.
Why are the Government so coy? Why are they giving us this convoluted formulation of words about long-term plans and a focus on a very narrow, although helpful, policy about national insurance? It is because they have failed and they know it. Nothing the Government said last week or this week changes the underlying direction of travel or the underlying shape of the economy as described to us in the Red Book only a few months ago.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I am really interested in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. The International Monetary Fund has confirmed that we are the fastest growing country in the G7. We have seen growth in all sectors of the economy in the past year. That must be welcomed. There is no unicorn. The only unicorn is the Scottish National party’s claims that Scotland will be better off out of the UK.
Stewart Hosie
That is because we would be. Although I welcome the limited growth that we have had, the actions taken by this Government since the last election stifled and strangled the recovery for some years, and that is the underlying problem with their plan.
Let me take Scotland as an example. What the Government are proposing—this was before the Budget—is an 11% fiscal expenditure cut, a 27% cut in capital and a real terms 9.9% cut in the overall budget. This year’s Budget made that position worse, and that applies to spending Departments throughout the UK. Nothing in the Queen’s Speech changes that. Nor does it change the fact that the Chancellor told us that for 2013-14, the current account deficit would be down to 2.3% of GDP, borrowing would be reduced to £60 billion and the net debt would be at 70% of GDP. He was forced to tell us this year that the current account deficit was higher, borrowing was actually £95.5 billion and the net debt was 75% of GDP. The short-term metrics were wrong.
What about the big targets the Chancellor set for himself? They were that the debt would begin to fall as a share of GDP by this year, that the current account would be in balance next year and that the same year borrowing would be down to £20 billion. Presumably, that is what the Prime Minister meant by financial security. Of course, as we know—nothing in the Queen’s Speech changes this—the debt will not fall until 2016-17, two years late. The current account will not be back in the black until 2017-18, two years late. Public sector net borrowing in 2015-16 will not be £20 billion but £68 billion, three and a half times higher.
Although the limited recovery we have seen in the past year is of course to be welcomed—this directly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—not a single one of the Chancellor’s key targets has been met and his actions, as this is an austerity Government, stifled growth and delayed recovery year on year. No amount of convoluted formulations or warm words about long-term economic plans can change that.
What are the Government planning? It is there in black and white in the Red Book, on page 20 for anybody who wants to have a look. There will be a discretionary consolidation—that is cuts, and tax rises—next year to the tune of £126 billion. That is £2,000 per person in tax rises and cuts. That is what they are planning and that is what they have signed up to.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments on achieving growth. Presumably the skill base would need to be increased, so I take it that he agrees that cutting the college budget by £50 million would not be the way to achieve sustainable growth.
Stewart Hosie
When it comes to improving education, having a record number of Scots in full-time college places is excellent; having 25,000 to 26,000 Scots starting apprenticeships every year is first class; having 32,000 Scots start university this year is the way to proceed; and having all the school exam results improve in the way they have is probably a really good start. If the hon. Lady is saying that we can do more and can do better, of course we can—any Government can—but let us not talk down success, particularly when we are trying to hold this Government to account.
The point that I was making is that what we have is not a long-term economic plan. It is certainly not sustainable and it is certainly not a recipe for the growth the economy needs. It is just more Liberal and Tory austerity. It is the same plan that has seen this Government fail on their short-term and long-term targets so far and that will fail again. If it is about financial security, there is no evidence that it will succeed. If it is about growth, the Government are not even talking about that. If it is about delivering on the needs and ambitions of the people, it is woefully inadequate. As the discretionary consolidation laid out in black and white in the Red Book is predicated on a ratio of cuts to tax rises of 4:1, we do not have a long-term economic plan but a Tory Government who seem determined once again to try to balance the books on the backs of the poor. That is not a long-term economic plan; that is a disgrace.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I start by welcoming a number of the measures that the Government announced, such as the increase in the revenue non-compliance budget, increased export funding and the further doubling of the annual investment allowance. If the Government carry on like this, we will be back to having an industrial buildings allowance policy, which should never have been scrapped in the first place. There is also the halving, at last, of bingo duty—my favourite cause. All these one-off measures are very sensible, could be implemented by any Government and ought to be welcomed by everybody.
However, that does not change this Government’s underlying direction of travel or the underlying shape of the economy as described to us in the Red Book. Scotland has suffered an 11% cut in the fiscal departmental expenditure limit, a 27% cut in capital and a real-terms 9.9% cut in the overall budget. The numbers announced today imply a further real-terms cut in the budget. I do not want to speak too much about Scotland, but it is important that we get on the record just how damaging this Government continue to be.
What the Budget speech and the Red Book tell us is that, by every measure the Chancellor has set for himself, he has failed. In his first Budget, he told us that in 2013-14 the current account deficit would be 2.3% of GDP, borrowing would be reduced to £60 billion and the net debt would be 70% of GDP. Today, he told us that for the same year, the current account deficit is higher, borrowing is actually at £95.6 billion and the net debt is around 75% of GDP.
Let me be generous: any Government can make a mistake for one year, so what about the big targets the Chancellor set for himself? They were: that debt would begin to fall as a share of GDP by 2014-15; that the current account would be in balance the following year; and that in the same year, public sector net borrowing would fall to £20 billion. Debt will not begin to fall until 2016-17—two years late. The current account will not be back in the black until 2017-18—two years late. Public sector net borrowing in 2015-16 will not be £20 billion; rather, the forecast figure—£68 billion—is more than three times that. Not a single one of the Chancellor’s key targets has been met.
Mr Redwood
Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the forecasted very sharp fall-off in petroleum revenue tax, and is that reflected in SNP plans?
Stewart Hosie
It is extremely convenient that, once again, we have a “North sea oil price crash” story on Budget day, some six months before the referendum. If the right hon. Gentleman keeps saying it, I am sure someone somewhere will finally believe him. I am not dreadfully convinced.
The bottom line is that—just like the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention—the Chancellor’s speech was hugely political. He did not tell us about recovery; he did not tell us that he is trying to lift the burden from hard-working families; he did not apologise for trying to rebalance the economy on the backs of the poor. This Budget speech was a political platform for the next election, and if it was supposed to be a vindication of his policies, then it failed, because the policies have failed.
The Chancellor did of course have a deal to say about tax. He is right to increase the basic rate threshold to £10,000, and then to £10,500. Raising the threshold from £6,500 to £10,000, resulting in savings this year of £700 for the average person, is sensible, but of course, that is only part of the personal tax story. This Government have pushed ahead with a tax cut for millionaires and have continued to squeeze the middle—the genuine middle class. The threshold for those paying the 40% rate of tax has come down from £37,500 to under £32,000, so for every penny saved at the bottom, they have had to pay more than a penny at 40%. I therefore welcome the fact that the 40% threshold is going to be increased, but that is not until 2014-15. It will not change the fact that the proportion of people paying the 40% tax rate has doubled over the past two decades, and there are now 2.1 million more people paying a rate of tax that was previously only for the rich.
It is not just the middle: it is the poorest in society who have been hit hardest. We know—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) told us—that the proportion of tax cuts to tax rises is 4:1. We knew from previous Budgets that the impact of the discretionary consolidation would be £155 billion. Interestingly, the Government have removed that figure from the Red Book: they have removed the year 2016-17 from the forecast, and are now telling us that the discretionary consolidation will be only £126 billion. However, that forecast goes only to 2015-16, and I am concerned that they are not making a longer forecast, so we can see the real scale of the damage they are trying to do.
We in the SNP know where the pain of this Budget and of this Government’s policy direction will be felt. It will be the 144,000 households in Scotland who are losing some £3,500 each through changes to incapacity benefit. It will be the 372,000 Scottish households who have seen tax credits reduced to the tune of £800 a year. It will be the 620,000 families hit by changes to child benefit, who have lost an average of £360 a year. It will be felt by the 55,000 people who are losing an average of £3,000 a year as disability living allowance is removed. Those are the people whom we should be thinking about and who should be helped. Instead, the Government continue to try to balance the books on the back of the poor.
I welcome the fact that the Budget forecast at least says that there will be some growth, but it is once again heavily predicated on business investment growth. In Budget after Budget, the Government have produced five-year growth forecasts. In 2010, growth was predicted to be between 8% and 10% a year, but by the time we got to 2011 it had turned negative and they had to set yet more ambitious targets for the next five years. So it went on, and we find in the Red Book that the forecast business investment growth for last year turned negative again. I am desperate to see positive business investment growth, and the jobs that come with it, but we keep seeing the same story from the Government. They keep failing.
What should the Government have done? There are any number of policies that they might have adopted. Instead of tinkering with air passenger duty, they might have cut it properly or acted sensibly to boost international connectivity. Instead of simply freezing fuel duty, they might have introduced a real fuel duty regulator to smooth out future spikes. They might have cancelled some of their austerity measures, or at least removed the cap on discretionary housing payments to help the poorest. There are so many things that they might have done.
In the North sea, the Government announced that they would implement the Wood review in full. That will save the industry some £45 million, and it is to be welcomed. However, they are keeping the offshore chartering regime that they announced last year, which will cost the industry £600 million. They keep getting it wrong every single time.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Should the Government not acknowledge that the North sea is booming, and that the drop in revenues is due to investment being tax deductible? What we are seeing is a healthy North sea for the years to come.
Stewart Hosie
I am sure that we all support £14 billion-worth of investment this year and £100 billion in the plans, and the drilling of 133 oil and gas wells to invest for the future. We would all be far less happy if that investment was not taking place. The problem is that all the good things that the Government could and should have done would have required them to change their policy fundamentally, away from billions more in austerity cuts and away from the policies that have stifled growth and recovery over the past few years.
I am not at all convinced that this was a Budget for recovery. It was a political Budget from an all-too-political Chancellor. I saw Tory Back Benchers waving their Order Papers not only after the Budget statement but before it was even made, and I suspect that such hubris will come back to haunt them. I hope that with a yes vote in this year’s referendum, this will be the last Tory Budget ever to affect Scotland.
Currency in Scotland after 2014
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(10 years, 9 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
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is slightly disappointing that we cannot have a longer, more detailed debate on this issue. There is a great deal to say to answer the points that have been raised.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing this debate, although from what we have heard so far, it is less of a debate on currency and more of a quick canter through some of the no campaign’s scaremongering. I would like to address one or two of the points that he made. He suggested that the Scottish economy would be run on ginger bottles—that is, old lemonade bottles. What a patronising and insulting way to look at a modern, productive economy.
Stewart Hosie
No. I have only five minutes.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South suggested that so much money had been put into Scottish banks. I draw his attention to chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the report by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The cash cost at peak is reported to be £133 billion—that was £47 billion to Royal Bank of Scotland in return for 82% of the stock, around £25 million into Lloyds, and smaller amounts to the Icelandic and other financial institutions. Where taxpayers are still on the hook is the near £50 billion owed to them from Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, which may be many things, but they are not Scottish banks. The notion that the argument was ever about Scottish banks bad, English banks good, must be knocked on the head.
The old chestnut about Scotland in a sterling currency zone being like Greece was also raised. Greece’s problem had nothing to do with being in a currency union and everything to do with appalling productivity. As we know, Scottish productivity is nigh on identical to that of the rest of the UK. That would avoid such problems entirely.
Stewart Hosie
No. I do not have time.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South rightly and understandably prayed in aid Dr Carney’s recent speech, which he said did not pass judgment on the relative merits of the different currency options for Scotland, but instead drew attention to the key issues. However, Dr Carney did point out that any arrangement would be negotiated and that the Bank of England would implement whatever monetary arrangements were put in place. That is to be welcomed, not just by me, but by the 71% of people in the rest of the UK who support the continued use of sterling after Scottish independence. The same proportion—71%—of Labour voters in Scotland also support the continued use of sterling after independence.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South and the no campaign seem to fail to understand what Scotland brings to the table. Of course we recognise the constraints—I will come on to them—but we bring export revenue receipted in sterling. The impact on the sterling balance of trade would be immediate and significant were Scotland somehow—impossibly—forced not to be able to use sterling. The same applies to trade—the rest of the UK sells £60 billion into Scotland. If we were forced to use a foreign currency and transaction costs were applied, that would imply a catastrophic loss to English businesses: additional costs that the no campaign never mentioned.
Let us put the matter into context. In 2012, the rest of the UK sold into Scotland more than it did into Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Russia, India, South Korea, China, and Japan combined, yet we hear from the no campaign that they do not want us to use sterling, even though that is impossible, which would imply massive transaction costs and the loss of jobs in the rest of the UK. I am sure that is not something they intend to do.
Stewart Hosie
No, I do not have time. So where would independence while keeping sterling leave us? It would not imply a foreign currency controlling our economy, because the central bank does not control the economy. It works to a single 2% inflation target, which we think is sensible.
Stewart Hosie
No, I do not have time. It would effectively leave us in Scotland in the same place as the rest of the UK, accepting the discipline of an independent Monetary Policy Committee, while leaving Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, in complete control of the rest of its social and economic levers. We would have parity.
Stewart Hosie
I do not have time. I have barely a few seconds left. I do not even have time to comment on the Chancellor’s supposed intervention tomorrow. However, if a Tory toff Chancellor goes to Scotland to bully and to scaremonger, it will be looked on very badly indeed by the Scottish people.
Cathy Jamieson
Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps the Minister will shed light on whether there has been any discussion on these issues. The SNP’s current argument seems to be that, in an independent Scotland, it will not take any of the difficult decisions that go along with that. It is not entirely clear yet what will happen to all the benefits and pensions arrangements, and all the rest of it, for some time into the distance. The idea that it will be all right on the night is simply not good enough, as was said earlier.
People have lined up to criticise the SNP’s scenario, including Brian Quinn, former executive director of the Bank of England, Owen Kelly of Scottish Financial Enterprise, Iain McMillan, director of CBI Scotland, the chair of political economy at the university of Glasgow, and the chief European financial economist, who is from a key financial institution. All those people—I do not have time to quote them—have criticised it.
I was told, although I did not hear it personally and will look closely at the transcript, that the Deputy First Minister implied, on “Good Morning Scotland”, that if an independent Scotland did not get its own way on the currency union, it would simply default or walk away from a debt. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that she never thought that she would see a referendum in her lifetime. In all the years I was in the Scottish Parliament, during some of which time I served as a Minister, I never thought I would hear a Deputy First Minister of Scotland shirk responsibility and say that they would walk away from a debt and put Scotland’s economy at risk. I hope that that report from this morning is not entirely accurate. If it is, I hope that the Deputy First Minister now regrets those remarks and looks again at them.
Stewart Hosie
One of the few who is fair. In relation to the assertion that the hon. Lady and many of her colleagues have made about the Deputy First Minister—who, of course, cannot defend herself here—I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that, if we are talking about negotiating a share of assets, which includes the central bank, we need to talk about negotiating a share of the liabilities, so we can take our responsibility for them. The UK Government and their allies cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect Scotland to take on a share of the liabilities while refusing even to negotiate on a share of the assets. Surely, as a reasonable person, the hon. Lady would agree that that makes no sense.
Cathy Jamieson
I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman says. Again, I gently suggest that if it is so important to have those parts of the United Kingdom that the SNP seems to want to retain, why on earth are we looking to break it up in the first place? Why are the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament not spending more time looking after the issues for which they have responsibility? Only at the weekend, there were reports about what was happening in the health service in Scotland; about the justice system—we have a proud record of a different legal system in Scotland—being dismantled, bit by bit, by the Scottish Government; and about a range of issues to do with social justice that are simply not being tackled by that Government. It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that.
We have had an important debate. There has not been enough time, perhaps, to consider all the issues in detail, as we would have liked. I am sure that there will be further opportunities to do so. I wish to hear what the Minister has to say on this occasion; I am sure that I am more likely to agree with some of it than on other occasions, when I would be looking to put him under the kind of scrutiny that the hon. Member for Dundee East should be under today.
Sajid Javid
That goes to show that the SNP is not interested in a serious debate on one of the most important issues facing the Scottish and British people. That speaks for itself.
The Government have consistently stated throughout the debate that the current economic arrangement—one currency in one United Kingdom—is in the best interest of everyone. We have also consistently stated that it is highly unlikely that a currency union between an independent Scotland and a continuing UK could be made to work. I will use the remaining time to remind hon. Members of our analysis, which explains why that is the case.
First, the lessons of the eurozone crisis are there for us to see. Currency unions do not work without close political and fiscal integration. As a result of the crisis, those countries that use the euro are moving towards ever greater integration to address the challenges that they face. Scottish independence, though, is all about disintegration and would inevitably mean that the continuing UK and Scotland move further apart. The Scottish Government’s proposal for a currency union without fiscal or political integration lacks any credibility and makes one wonder whether the Scottish Government actually understand what the word “independence” means.
Secondly, we know that the economies of an independent Scotland and a continuing UK would be very different and would diverge over time as a result of different laws, different regulations and different industries. One industry that we know would be important for Scotland is North sea oil. A significant portion of an independent Scotland’s economy would depend on oil revenues. Were a change in oil price to affect the two countries differently, a one-size monetary policy with one currency for two separate nations would simply not be suitable.
Thirdly, despite the Scottish Government’s claim, we do not believe that a currency union would be in the interest of an independent Scotland. Such a union would inevitably constrain Scotland’s own economic policies because the remaining UK, to manage the risks of the union, would need to set interest rates and maintain oversight of an independent Scotland’s tax and spending plans. Indeed, a currency union would also be likely to undermine an independent Scotland’s economic resilience and credibility. If, for example, the financial markets sensed that the Bank of England’s monetary policy did not suit Scottish circumstances, they might doubt Scotland’s commitment to the currency union, which would, in turn, lead to financial market speculation. In such circumstances, if markets were not calmed, there would be a very real possibility that Scotland would be forced to adopt its own currency in a time of crisis. One is reminded of the recent situation in Cyprus when there was plenty of talk of the country potentially leaving the euro. Members will know that that was prevented only after a huge bail out from other eurozone members, which came at a significant cost to Cypriots, many of whom lost up to 40% of their deposits in domestic banks.
Fourthly, just as a currency union is not in Scotland’s interest, it is hard to see how it could be in the interest of the remaining United Kingdom. Such a union would involve the remaining United Kingdom giving up an element of its economic sovereignty, as we have heard from many hon. Members today. The public would feel very strongly about that. It would increase the risk of having to bail out Scottish banks, and the idea of putting the remaining United Kingdom’s economy at risk because of another country’s banks just as we are getting our own banks in order would make no sense.
Before I come to an end, I will address some of the questions that have been raised. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and what he has to say on this issue is very important. I agree with the shadow Minister that he is an intelligent person who makes valuable contributions in the House, but from what I have heard today, he does not seem to want facts to get in the way of a good argument.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members mentioned the banking bail outs of 2008. I remind him that the cost of recapitalising the Royal Bank of Scotland was £45 billion, which is the largest banking bail out the world has ever seen, plus an additional £275 billion of state support through guarantee and funding commitments. That sum is more than 200% of an independent Scotland’s GDP.
Stewart Hosie
Presumably, the Minister does not disagree with the Banking Commission that the total cash cost of the entire financial bail out of all the systems was £133 billion. Of the other figures that he talks about, £220 billion was made up of the asset protection scheme, which was a paid-for insurance guarantee. The scheme made the taxpayer a profit and was never called upon; it has since been shut down. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct?
Sajid Javid
Again, that is a good demonstration of how the hon. Gentleman would like to twist the facts. Just because a guarantee is not called upon does not mean that it has not done its job. The guarantee provided confidence and ensured that the banking system did not collapse. Our analysis shows that Scottish banks, even when we focus only on their assets in Scotland, would have assets equal to 10 times the GDP of an independent Scotland. That shows that it would be difficult for an independent Scotland to give depositors confidence in its domestic banking system.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned trade between the UK and Scotland. The UK accounts for 70% of Scotland’s total trade, whereas Scotland accounts for 10% of the UK’s trade. Scottish trade is important to the UK economy, but it is not clear that it is important enough to risk recreating in the British isles the problems that we have seen in the euro area.
In conclusion, a fiscal and currency union pursued by two diverging nations would put significant limits on an independent Scotland’s economic freedom, and it would put an independent Scotland at severe risk of losing economic resilience and credibility. Such a union would undermine a continuing UK’s sovereignty and would increase the risk of bank bail outs. That is why we have consistently said that it is highly unlikely that a currency union would be agreed and that it is highly unlikely that a currency union could be made to work.
Fairness and Inequality
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacNeil
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to stand at the Dispatch Box to tell us what Johann Lamont is thinking about the cuts commission, but he failed to do that.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
There is a lot of deflection going on. The Labour party has said that nothing is off the table, which might mean £9,000 per child per year to go to university, a return to a tax on ill health with charge-free prescriptions going and all that. In his heart, does my hon. Friend not agree that this is ideological: the British Labour party thinks that we are part of a something-for-nothing society, when all we are doing is caring for those most in need?
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend puts it very well: we are caring for those in need. Our hearts should go out to those needing help, and we should not be thought of as part of a something-for-nothing society.
Mr MacNeil
Had the hon. Lady been in Parliament when Labour were in power and seen what her party did in that period, she might be less bold. We have to look at what is good for Scotland and what we can do to create opportunity and employment in Scotland, and I will not resile or shy away from that in any way, shape or form.
The contention is that money is not circulating. That is why some years ago we had a fiscal stimulus and why we have had quantitative easing. My problem with QE is that it has not been aimed at the demand recovery for which Stiglitz and Krugman would look; instead, in the opinion of many, it is propping up financial institutions. I note that, at one time, Ben Bernanke suggested that the way to return demand to Japan 20 years ago, when the country was experiencing stagflation, was to take a helicopter full of yen notes and fly above Japanese cities shovelling them out. That is certainly one way to return demand to the economy, but of course serious voices would recoil at the idea and not allow it to happen. There are some answers in economics, however, that are counter-intuitive to many of the things we naturally feel and do daily. We should not be afraid of looking at some of the other, more grounded, ideas, but I fear that a Government who have chosen the cult of austerity over the pursuit of growth are unlikely to look imaginatively at what they can do for the economy—they certainly have not done so in the past three years.
Growth in productivity has not been matched by growth in wages. The “Working for Poverty” report notes that
“Wages and economic output began to decouple in 2003, five years before the onset of the financial crisis. Real average wages have grown by 13% since 1999, whereas economic output”—
that is, productivity—
“has risen by four times this rate.”
That means again that economic growth alone will not solve Britain’s low pay crisis. The Government should set up a commission of inquiry into poverty and inequality, as we call for in the motion, to look at how we can improve the lives of citizens—people we see daily; people we perhaps knew in school, or relatives; people who live in our communities. They should not be left behind, with only 18% escaping low pay over a decade, as we heard earlier. In a further example, the report notes that
“Productivity growth and median pay began to decouple in the 1980s and median hourly earnings have failed to keep pace with the average value of output that workers produce.”
I am heartened to know that even the Prime Minister supports the living wage, saying that where companies can afford to pay the living wage, they should. A living wage is only £7.65 an hour—that is the figure mentioned in the White Paper for independence and in the “Working for Poverty” report. That is only £306 for a 40-hour week or about £16,000 per annum—not a king’s ransom by any means. We should remember that the minimum wage is £6.31 an hour, so it takes an increase of only £1.34 an hour to get to the living wage. I praise the Prime Minister for what he said, but while he apparently sees the justice and wisdom of the measure, as a politician in charge of a Government, he is doing nothing about it. We should realise that life is short, life in politics is shorter, and life in power is shortest of all, so Governments should take the opportunity when they have power to do a lot to improve the lives of the people they govern.
Some of this debate is mere dry statistics. We should look at some of the human stories in the “Working for Poverty” report—the accounts of normal, decent people across the countries who are trying to earn an honest living in a state, the UK, that does not value all its citizens fairly. Their stories should be heard and understood; they inform the debate and help to remove the dryness of the statistics.
Stewart Hosie
Very generously indeed, my hon. Friend has praised the Prime Minister, who at least wants to do something about the minimum wage, but is it not disappointing when the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was answering questions about the living wage, she said, even though it is £7.65 in Scotland and £8.80 in London, that it was “too difficult to calculate”? Is not that a rather bizarre position for the UK Government to take, given that we already know what the figures are?
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend puts it very well indeed. I do not think any more needs to be said.
Case study 1 in the interim report from the Living Wage Commission is Paul’s story. The report tells us that
“Paul is a support worker in the care sector in the North West of England. His partner is a youth worker in the youth justice sector for the local Borough Council. They have a sixteen year old daughter and are both paid below the Living Wage.”
Paul says:
“I started work for my current employer in 2009 and have never been given a pay rise. During this time I have experienced a palpable leap in the cost of living. My wife started her employment in 2010 and she has witnessed a drop in the amount of money she is paid for her considerable and anti-social working hours.
We are both working full-time, living in local housing association rented accommodation and we are always struggling to pay our way. We have no luxuries, we have not been on holiday and we do not socialise. We work, eat and sleep. There are no extra benefits we can claim to help us. There is little we can hope to do but keep on working in the hope that we will eventually see some ‘light at the end of the tunnel’.
I have juggled our debt as best as I am able to. I have moved some debt onto zero interest credit cards which have given us an 18 month window to clear some debt without accruing the hefty interest charges which would be crippling.
We are substantially in arrears with the rental of our home. The landlord is attempting to negotiate a payment plan to help us to manage this debt. We avoid doing so to enable us to more flexibly manage our debt. One week we can pay a little off our rental debt but the next we must buy food and fuel, pay outstanding vets bills, and more besides.
We often spend days apart. This is due to my low pay and the need for me to do sleep-in duties as a carer to garner something like a liveable income. We can often only communicate through rushed text messages and leaving voicemails for each other. Our sixteen year old daughter misses us both greatly. We did not even have a day out together as a family in 2013.”
That one story crystallises in many ways the nub of today’s debate. I am grateful to the Archbishop of York for his report and for setting out people’s experiences. Perhaps the saddest line in that quotation is:
“We work, eat and sleep”.
It is shocking that the citizens of a first-world, G7 country are living in that way.
Government Members often talk about the importance of family as a building block of society. I would argue that the living wage benefits and reinforces families. To take home the same wage that an employee on the living wage would receive for a typical 37.5 hour week, minimum wage earners would have to work 52.3 hours a week in London or 45.5 hours a week outside London. In a typical Monday-to-Friday working week, that is equivalent to working 10.5 hours a day in London or 9.1 hours a day outside London. That rises to 11.5 hours for London or 10.1 hours outside London if we include an hour’s lunch break.
A worker who does a Monday-to-Friday job in London on the national minimum wage, who gets the Government’s recommended amount of sleep each night and who has an average commute therefore gets only three hours and 45 minutes to spend as they wish in each week day. The same employee would get six hours and 45 minutes of time each day if they were paid the living wage. That is an extra three hours a day or almost double the time that a minimum wage worker has to spend with their family or to do anything else that they want to do. That shows how those in low-paid jobs have little work-life balance and have to sacrifice the time that they spend with their children or on social engagement. That can lead to other problems further down the line. If ever there was an example of what an additional £1.43 an hour could bring, that is it.
When we hear people using the family as a political argument in future, it must be backed up by some economic and legislative muscle in order that people have a decent wage and a decent start in life. The most important point to make is that the people we are discussing are working—they are the working poor. They work long hours to do what they can for themselves and their families, yet they are unable to participate properly in society.
It is a damning indictment of all of us in this House that we have tolerated the emergence of such a reality in our midst over the past few decades. Although I am only 43, all of us have a responsibility for that. We have a responsibility to speak out about it. That is why we are having this debate. I hope that the Government will listen and will bring forward a commission of inquiry on inequality and poverty, because those issues blight the lives of far too many people. It should simply be stopped.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The personal responsibility argument is extremely strong and powerful, but does not the hon. Gentleman see some merit in the fact that Lords amendment 41 talks about a code of conduct? Is not the code of conduct described in the amendment a mechanism that could be used to drive the change in culture throughout the organisation that he describes?
Mark Garnier
I agree entirely. A number of professional bodies in the banking industry have a code of conduct. I, for example, am a fellow of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment, which has a code of conduct. Many people working in investment banks will be fellows of the CISI. Indeed, Sir Richard Lambert’s proposals, about which we shall hear more in the new year, will include a code of conduct. It is also worth bearing in mind that the banks are producing their own code of conduct that is being fed back to the regulator, which will consider what they are saying.
Let me wind up, because I think the Minister would like to speak at some point. I would be the last person to stand in his way, because I know that he will have some intelligent things to say. Suffice it to say that I think amendment 41 will prevent the behavioural changes we desire, and that is why I will reject it.
Autumn Statement
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In 2010, there was a hung Parliament and the potential for political paralysis in this country, but two political parties from different political traditions came together. It is a remarkable testament to the strength of this Government and the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that we can put together these complicated, difficult autumn statements, with difficult decisions being taken on things such as the pension age, public expenditure in Whitehall and tax avoidance. We can do that together; of course, I would rather do it alone, but that is up to the British people in the next election.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
There was such hubris from this Chancellor that he pointed to a 1% rise in GDP this year, when GDP will still be 2.5% smaller than before the crisis; that he pointed to recent falls in unemployment, when there are still 1 million more unemployed than before the crisis; and that he said borrowing would fall to £111 billion, when that is £55 billion more than he promised for this year in 2010. That was before the body blow of increasing the retiral age, so that youngsters leaving school this year will have to work for 50 years and will be older than their grandparents are now before they can draw their pension. Given that this Chancellor has failed on every target he has set himself, how can we possibly trust him on anything he has said today, including on oil forecasts?
Mr Osborne
The central point that Scotland might want to focus on today is that the oil forecasts are independently produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, so either the SNP believes that Robert Chote has somehow fiddled the numbers to stack the campaign against independence, or the truth is that it is making a false promise to the Scottish people. The SNP is not being straight with people about the public finance position of an independent Scotland, and it is Scottish people who would pay the price if there was such an outcome, but I think that they are beginning to have serious doubts about the claims that the SNP is making.
Cost of Living
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. What goes on in Wales is an excellent example of what a Labour Government would do, if they had the chance, in the United Kingdom. As well as increases in council tax, there has been a 10% cut in the NHS budget in Wales. That tells us exactly what Labour’s priorities are.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
On exports, in 2011 the deficit for trading goods was £100 billion. In 2012, that rose to £110 billion in the red, and has been running at about £20 billion in the red every quarter this year. I am not sure if I am seeing the green shoots of export recovery that the Minister is seeing.
Sajid Javid
I will speak on exports in more detail shortly. I am not sure that Scottish independence would help the record on exports.
Under this Government, Labour’s record budget deficit is down by a third, confidence and investment is on the rise, and the economy has turned a corner. The UK is growing faster than any other developed economy, including the US, Germany and Japan. Just last week, while downgrading global growth the OECD revised up UK growth by more than any other developed country. That growth is spread broadly across all sectors of the economy. Recent survey data show that construction is at its strongest level in six years and that activity in the services sector has not been this strong since 1997. New orders in manufacturing have risen to their highest level since 1995, according to the CBI.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I wish to say a little about the motion before I start my speech proper. The motion is in two parts, the first of which describes the failure of the Conservative Government—I intend to say most about that—and the second calls for action to mitigate the cost of living crisis. Although the Scottish National party does not agree with the Labour party on the precise mechanism of its fuel price freeze—we would prefer to see a cut—the principle of taking action on fuel is important in tackling the cost of living, so we will certainly be able to support this tonight.
I wish to start by discussing tax, because that clearly has as much of a bearing on people’s ability to cope with rising prices as do earnings or the prices themselves. The Government are right to try to take as many people on low and modest wages out of tax as possible. The saving of £595 a year for basic rate taxpayers through the change in the basic allowance from £6,500 in 2010 to £9,440 this year makes sense. However, a saving of £595 for basic rate taxpayers makes rather less sense when the same Government are embarked on a £40,000 tax give-away for millionaires.
The people I really want to talk about are those in the middle, who are paying some of the heaviest price for the mistakes this Government have made. These people have seen the tax relief before they pay the 40% band fall from £37,500 in 2010 to £34,700 last year and to £32,000 this year. So for every £595 saved as a result of changes to the basic rate, they have had to shell out an extra £2,000 at 40p in the pound. That does not make people better off; it exacerbates the crisis faced by people, particularly hard-working people on middle incomes. I am not talking about the very poorest and I am certainly not talking about the very wealthy; I am discussing those on genuinely middle incomes. It means that this Government have taken the number of people paying 40% tax to a whopping 4.3 million; whereas barely 5% of taxpayers did so 25 years ago, the figure has rocketed and 16% of all taxpayers now pay a 40% tax rate—even a quarter of a century ago this was a band only for the rich. They are not paying that because they are wealthier or even because the economy has come out of the austerity period. Indeed, people feel poorer because they are poorer.
Last year, the Office for Budget Responsibility changed its forecast—I think this contradicts what the Minister said—by reducing household disposable income every year from 2013 onwards in the forecast period. In the March economic and fiscal outlook, it marked down real disposable income again to be negative or zero every year until 2017. People will not simply be not wealthier but will feel the burden of higher costs and stagnating real disposable income year after year after year of this Government.
It is no surprise that households should feel poorer given that since the Government came to power inflation has constantly exceeded targets, pay has been frozen and benefits have been cut. Even the calculation of pensions, notwithstanding the much-vaunted triple lock, has changed from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. People need to understand that the actions of this Chancellor have caused untold damage to, and put pressure on, families throughout the UK, and much of that is because, as the motion says, he has failed to meet any of the economic targets that he set himself.
When the Government came to power in 2010, they told us that the current account deficit for this year would be a mere £40 billion. This year, in the Budget, the Chancellor told that it would be £84 billion, which is more than double the original figure. In 2010, the Chancellor told us that public sector net borrowing for this year would be barely £60 billion. This year, he told us that it was £108 billion, but when we add on the fiddled stuff with the pension funds, we find that it was actually £120 billion—again, more than double the figure.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it would have been a better plan to borrow more money to reduce those deficits?
Stewart Hosie
I am suggesting that to try to remove the structural deficit and fail over a fixed time scale, taking no cognisance of external shocks, was a stupid thing to do and a daft economic and political decision, which the Government were warned about in advance. The warnings failed precisely because this Chancellor promised that national debt would peak at 85% of GDP on the treaty calculation, or at £1.162 trillion on the normal calculation. However, we were then told this year that it would not peak until 2015-16 at over 100% of GDP on the treaty calculation, or at more than £1.5 trillion on the normal calculation.
Mr Ellwood
There is a comparison here with what those on the Labour Front Bench are saying. The hon. Gentleman said his speech was in two halves, but his argument is in two halves. He has just said that he is upset that the Government are taxing people too much, and now he is complaining that targets have not been met. Will he at least join me in welcoming the IMF’s upgraded forecast, which suggests that for this year growth will move from 0.9% to 1.4%, and next year from 1.5% to 1.9%? That must be welcome news.
Stewart Hosie
I always welcome growth in the economy, but the error that the hon. Gentleman and his Government have made is that by increasing tax and cutting to the extent that they have—the ratio of cuts to tax increases is four to one—they will have sucked out of the economy by 2016-17 roughly £155 billion a year. That is the equivalent of sucking 7.5% of GDP in terms of consumption out of the economy.
Stewart Hosie
I will not give way, because we only get two minutes’ stoppage time, and I have had my two minutes.
This Government are also borrowing more and we are all paying the cost of failure. The Government’s main failure is on the fiscal rules they set themselves: that the structural current account deficit should be in balance in the final year of a future five-year programme—it will not be; and that debt should be falling as a share of GDP by the end of that period—it is not. Both objectives, were, and remain, highly dependent on GDP growth, which, as we have noted in previous Budgets, is massively dependent, at least according to the OBR, on extraordinary unmet and unmeetable levels of business investment. Let us remember that in 2010 the Government suggested, with a straight face, that business investment would have to grow between 8% and 11% a year between 2011 and 2015. By the time of the OBR fiscal outlook in November 2011, growth in business investment had turned negative again and the forecast had to be changed to show future projections of growth of up to 12%.
The Chancellor was at it again this year. Having failed to get the growth in business investment we needed, he is now suggesting growth in business investment of 8.6% in three out of the next four years. I hope that that happens, but based on the evidence we have seen so far and the inability of the banks to take their share in providing credit and liquidity to businesses, I fear that is a forlorn hope.
We have also been told—this point was mentioned earlier—that we will see the benefits to GDP growth of exports from the UK. In 2011, however, we had a deficit in trade in goods of £100 billion, which rose to £110 billion the following year. The deficit in trade in goods has been sitting at about £20 billion for every quarter of this year. The balance of goods and services was £23 billion in the red in 2011, and that figure worsened to £35 billion last year after four and a half years of depreciation in sterling. I would hope that at the very least the Government recognised that that part of the plan simply has not worked.
I hope that the Government will be less stubborn about recognising where they have failed and that their optimistic Budgets have simply collapsed into dust when faced with the stark reality of austerity economics, which strips consumption out of the economy in the way I have described.
Stewart Hosie
I will not.
The pain of all that, as always, is felt by ordinary people, because, as I said earlier, we know this much from the Red Book: the Government intend to take £155 billion a year out of the economy in discretionary consolidation by 2016-17. They will do that for that year and every year, the equivalent of stripping consumption worth about 7.5% of GDP from the economy. Given that they have increased the ratio of discretionary consolidation to four to one—four cuts for every one tax rise—we can see where the Government’s priorities lie: not with jobs, not with growth, not with recovery and not with lifting the burden of the cost of living crisis off the backs of ordinary people, but with balancing the books on the backs of ordinary people in this country. If nothing else, they should recognise that it is not working. The pain is intense for communities throughout the UK and they should think again when we get to the autumn statement.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but have you have had any indication from Mr Speaker whether he intends to make any statement to the House about his speech to the Hansard Society this evening, in which he proposes to announce the establishment of a Speaker’s commission on digital democracy? Furthermore, briefing of the media on the speech and the announcement within it has been taking place for some four hours already without any announcement being made to the House.
Kwasi Kwarteng
People in this country understand that any Government who came in after the 2010 election, amid the appalling wreckage of the economy bequeathed to us by the previous Government, would face a difficult proposition and have a difficult time. In fact, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), outlined a plan—the newspapers dubbed it the Darling plan—that advocated spending cuts and a 22% rate of VAT. As Members will know, I advocated a much lower rate. The Darling plan was an adult, mature recognition of the appalling legacies that his Government had given us. It recognised that we needed to reduce spending and that what was then dubbed austerity was absolutely necessary for this country’s financial future.
Despite Labour’s worst predictions, the Government’s plan is now beginning to work. We have not heard anything about plan B for several months. We have not heard anyone say, “Too far, too fast.” One esteemed Labour economist said that unemployment would hit 5 million, but none of those dire predictions actually happened. Labour persists, however, in peddling the socialist, never-never land idea that borrowing more money will somehow reduce the deficit. That is absolutely insane. I understand why the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is banging her head as a symbol of her frustration, because some of her colleagues’ ideas are remarkably foolish.
Kwasi Kwarteng
No, I will not. I tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but he quite rightly wanted to use his full allocation of time.
What do the Opposition actually propose? They have no plans on the economy. Their economic credibility is severely questioned by the British public. All their prophecies and predictions have proved to be completely false. They are now left with the notion that the Government have somehow failed and that the very difficult time through which we have passed is a direct consequence of Government policies, when it has in fact been the direct consequence of the Government trying to get us out of the mess bequeathed by the Opposition.
Let us look at the Darling plan. When the Labour Chancellor was in government, he said that spending would have to be reduced, which is exactly what this Government have done and achieved. As I have mentioned, under the Darling plan the VAT rate would have been 22%. It is lower than that, so we have managed to achieve a degree of fiscal consolidation without some of the punitive tax rates suggested by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West.
All of this debate has a direct bearing on living standards and the difficulties that people are facing. Once again, under difficult fiscal constraints, this Government have managed to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of tax altogether. They have raised the personal allowance, which is a significant achievement in a time of relative austerity when we have not had the largesse that the previous Government enjoyed and abused. It is absolutely to the Government’s credit that we have managed to raise the personal allowance—taking people out of tax—which has alleviated living conditions and made them slightly easier for many of the poorest in this country.
Before I finish, I want to mention some of the gimmicks and wheezes that the Labour party has offered as serious policies. Government give-aways will still have to be paid for by the taxpayer. It is madness to try to freeze energy prices. Anyone who has looked at the economic history of this country knows that the price and wage controls of the 1960s and 1970s completely failed. We have abandoned such policies. Opposition Members will remember that beer duty was frozen in the 1960s for two years, and in the third year the price of beer went up by 41%. That is no way to conduct an economic policy.
Alec Shelbrooke
I could not agree more. What I am saying is that we need to grow an economy to ensure that we can get to a living wage, and that at the same time we should be looking at how we reduce the cost of living.
Why is the cost of living so high today? That is the fundamental question. Fundamentally, the cost of living comes down to one very important point—energy. We have had a lot of debate in the House this afternoon about whether to have an energy freeze, but if we freeze energy prices for a fixed period, prices will get ramped up before and after the freeze, as happened with the beer price freeze in the 1960s. We must take a more long-term view.
How did we end up where we are? It is my personal view—I support what was in our manifesto, and I wish we had moved further on it—that we need to start replacing our power stations, and at the moment nuclear power stations are by far the best way forward. It has taken a lot of effort and lengthy negotiations to get to one nuclear power station; we should be building five or six. But at the same time the world oil price is rising, and will not go down despite what anyone thinks. To put it in context, in 1998 a barrel of oil was $5 a barrel, and yesterday Brent crude was $100 a barrel—I am sure the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) will correct me if I am wrong. I believe that if oil reaches $140 a barrel, there is more economically recoverable oil in the North sea than has already been extracted. That is the reality of the situation.
Energy prices will not come down, so it is no good having a freeze for a period, because energy prices permeate every aspect of the cost of living—the price of food in the shops, the price of getting to work. We always talk about the petrol price, which has a big impact on getting to work, but we must do everything that we can to reduce the cost of getting goods to the shops, because that hits people’s wages. Since the start of this recession we have been on a wage freeze, if not a wage reduction, to prevent the runaway unemployment that we saw in the past.
What frustrates me in debates such as the one we are having today is not just the barrage of criticism from the Opposition of the way in which the Government have implemented their policies. That is fine; that is what we are in the House for. We are here to say that we have a route, we are sticking to it, and we think that it is working, and the Opposition are here to say, “We don’t agree.” But I have not heard any real alternative in the Chamber today. The closest we got—one of the more sensible speeches today—was the contribution by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who is no longer in his seat. He actually came up with some suggestions. I did not agree with them—I thought they were pie-in-the-sky thinking—but at least he stood there and put forward some policies.
Sadly, proposals were completely lacking in the shadow Chief Secretary’s speech. There was a constant barrage on what the Government had, he thought, got wrong, but no recognition of the fact that if we are going to tackle the cost of living crisis, we must tackle its root causes. The cost of living is going up because energy prices are high, and that has nothing to do with the six energy companies—there were 14 when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, but there were only six by the time he left that office, so it is a bit rich of him to come across saying that it is terrible. The inescapable truth is that the price of oil is not going to come down.
Stewart Hosie
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. He talks about having more oil and it being economically extractable, but he will accept that part of the equation is tax? Does he not regret the massive hike in the North sea supplementary charge that resulted in project after project being cancelled, and made certain fields less viable?
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman will agree that the hundreds of millions of pounds of tax credits that the Government have made available to the oil and gas industry will help make that resource more exploitable in future and keep the supplies on. It comes down to a fundamental issue: what do we need to do to tackle the cost of living crisis? What we do not need, and what my constituents do not want to hear, is “It’s your fault for going down the austerity route” or “The collapse of the banks is your fault.” They want to say, “Look, we know all that—we know what’s going on.” That is why in most opinion polls, a majority of people still blame the Labour Government for the economic mess we are in. [Interruption.] It is all very well the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) shaking his head—that is what my constituents tell me, and I am out on the doorstep all the time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
First, I add to the words of Mr Speaker and, perhaps, wish good luck to my hon. Friend’s future wife. He draws attention to a story that we have seen in the last few days: allegations of tax avoidance against Unite and against Labour. Maybe the links between the two are closer than we realised.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
While it is right that we all press down on active tax avoiders, a number of small businesses that find themselves categorised as such are simply unable to pay the correct amount. Does the Minister think that the average of 29 minutes that it can take for the Revenue to answer a telephone call, the fact that the tax code has reached 11,500 pages, the closure of local offices and the reduction in Revenue headcount—things for which he is responsible—might be contributing to this, at least in some way?
Mr Gauke
On support for small businesses, HMRC has in place a time-to-pay arrangement. On the service that is provided by HMRC, it is always seeking to improve and deal with telephone calls and letters as efficiently as possible. But we have to bear in mind that the yield that HMRC is bringing in is increasing by £10 billion over the course of this Parliament. HMRC’s performance on phone calls and letters is better than it was when we came to office. It has made considerable progress and that should be acknowledged.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
My right hon. Friend is completely correct about that. If the British public realised what has happened to the value of that taxpayer stake in RBS, they would be appalled. Today’s figures show that £2 billion-plus has been taken off the value of RBS since the botched handling of the departure of the chief executive, Stephen Hester. That mishandling forced the Chancellor to back down from a foolhardy dash towards a fire sale, which we know was part of the plan from the conversations that Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of RBS, let slip in comments to journalists around that time. Labour Members, however, are absolutely focused on the need for the taxpayer to get good value for money, to get our money back. That is entirely possible. Stephen Hester revealed the flaw in the Chancellor’s strategy for a hasty sale driven by the electoral timetable when he gave an interview to the BBC last month. When asked whether taxpayers would get back their £45.6 billion, he answered:
“RBS is capable of being worth more than what the government paid for the shares”.
When asked again whether it is possible for us to get our money back, he said:
“RBS is capable of that and I would be disappointed if over the passage of time that that won’t be the case.”
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I am very supportive of new clause 10, particularly the notion that the Government describe how the taxpayer will get the money back. However, has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to the timing of such a report and what information may need to be omitted, particularly in relation to asset clauses the Government may continue to hold, because it might be market-sensitive in the run-up to the re-privatisation of the bank?
Chris Leslie
I would have thought that before the Government considered a sale they would decide what they want to sell and what they do not want to sell. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests should be a particular problem, particularly given the taxpayer interests involved, in terms of having that report before a sale. However, I accept that there could be circumstances in which commercial confidentiality might apply and a line might need to be considered. I would be happy to examine whether some aspects of that need to be built into this concept. There is an opacity about the Government’s strategy, and the fog engulfing the Treasury, perhaps hiding the chaos within, is extremely thick—a real pea-souper. I am amazed that once the Chancellor of the Exchequer had defenestrated the chief executive of RBS—let us be honest, that is essentially what happened, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have protested, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv,” with his 82% shareholding he clearly had a hand in the decision —the Government were surprised when the markets reacted so adversely. It is amazing that they went down that route without thinking through who would replace Stephen Hester as chief executive of RBS, creating a massive amount of uncertainty about the future of the institution. We are glad that they changed their minds and were forced to back down from the rush to the fire sale, but what on earth are we left with and where is the situation going?
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Stewart Hosie Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
Most of the debate we have had in the short time available has pressed for firm action to be taken towards a sector that—let us not forget—brought down the economy, created massive deficits in our public finances, and required rescue by the taxpayer because of a blurring of the lines between issues that affected ordinary households up and down the country and high-risk investment banking activities that needed strong safeguards. Simply saying that we will have ring- fencing with no means to enforce or police that—no “electrification”, as it has been termed—would make that concept totally redundant. That is why members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards were surprised that the Government always seemed to take the path of least resistance—“Let’s not upset the banks too much; let’s try and go back to business as usual”—and are not learning the lessons of history.
We have re-tabled amendment 18 not just to have a specific firm-by-firm back-stop power for separation in case ring-fencing fails, but to have sector-wide powers as a back-stop in reserve should ring-fencing not work. We have the capability for full separation, but the Government have stubbornly refused to put that on the statute book—“Oh well, if we have such circumstances we can always legislate further down the line”—as if passing a Bill on such matters can be done quickly or effectively in any way.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone he is using on giving ring-fencing a chance and full separation being a back-stop power, or plan B, to be used only in certain circumstances. Amendment 18—the general requirement of separation and industry-wide potential for that—would clearly mean an end to universal banking, ring-fenced or otherwise. What consideration have he and his hon. Friends given to that issue, and particularly the transfer of cash between the two and the impact that might have on lending to the now retail sector, or lending for investment in business?
Chris Leslie
Those issues were covered pretty substantially by the commission in its first and second reports, and this was the conclusion it reached. Nobody wanted to go for full separation if it could be avoided; we wanted to ensure that ring-fencing arrangements could be upheld and made to work. There are some arguments in favour of that universal model, and therefore it was felt preferable to have such a power in reserve, but in the Bill. It is no wonder that the banking sector breathed a heavy sigh of relief today, when it saw the Government’s response on this and other issues. The markets judged that the banking sector got off lightly, and that there was nothing tough or difficult for the sector. That is why we have seen the market reaction today. The notion of business as usual seems to be back on the table.
I want the House to recognise that this is not an amendment that Labour has come up with in a partisan way. We are simply tabling an amendment that was drafted by the commission after days, weeks and months of deliberation and careful cross-party thought by Members of both Houses, but thrown back in the face of the commission by the Government today. It is important to have this on the statute book. A back-stop power will incentivise the banks to comply with ring-fencing. If the Government are correct in believing that ring-fencing will be adequate, the amendment will do no harm to the policy. It will sit dormant on the statute book. But if the Government are wrong, and this backstop power is not in place when it is needed, serious consequences could arise. It is nonsense for the Minister to ignore this risk, especially as the other place will want to come back to this issue. He may be forced to concede if we get into parliamentary ping-pong at some point.
I do not want to take up too much more time because many other hon. Members have spent a lot more time on this issue than I have, but I wish that the Government would listen to them and to the commission.
Stewart Hosie
I am very supportive of the notion of legislating now for the leverage provision, but in his new clause, the hon. Gentleman discusses
“a target for the overall leverage of the…system, to encompass…the activities of foreign financial institutions and non-bank originators of credit”—
or shadow banking. Although that might be taken into consideration in the calculation, the FPC would have no power to implement a leverage ratio in the shadow banking sector, so is there not an unintended consequence that leverage ratios may be too high in the formal banking sector to compensate for what the report found?
Chris Leslie
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to look at the new clause, because it is our second attempt to cajole or persuade the Government to look at this issue. In Committee, we took a different approach to the question of leverage, and tried to clarify that there was a clear power for the Government to act. I hope in the spirit of consensus and trying to move the arguments forward, the Minister and the House will accept that we have taken a new approach, thinking about leverage as it affects the UK economy as a whole. Leverage—and I shall come on to make this argument—is part and parcel of the way in which an economy works, and in the new clause we have looked at a particular design that would encompass other institutions. I do not want to be misinterpreted: we mention foreign banks, for example, but I do not intend any extra-territorial reference in the new clause. It simply makes it clear that the provision has to encompass effective leverage on the UK financial services sector as a whole.
I have referred to the Vickers commission, and it is important that we do not forget the work that it did, and that we pay tribute to it. It said that
“a leverage cap of thirty-three is too lax for systemically important banks, since it means that a loss of only 3% of such banks’ assets would wipe out their capital.”
The commission recommended a 25:1 ratio—a 4% ratio—but the Chancellor dismissed that concern. It is essential that the ring fence is supported by tougher capital requirements, as well as by a leverage ratio.
The parliamentary commission said that it was not convinced by the Government’s decision to reject the Vickers recommendation to limit leverage in this way. The parliamentary commission said that it
“considers it essential that the ring-fence should be supported by a higher leverage ratio, and would expect the leverage ratio to be set substantially higher than the 3 per cent minimum required under Basel III. Not to do so would reduce the effectiveness of the leverage ratio as a counter-weight to the weaknesses of risk weighting.”
Sir Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, said that the leverage ratio turned out to be
“a far better predictor of the institutions that failed in the crisis”
than measures of risk-weighted assets. I could go on; a great deal of debate has taken place on this issue.
Our new clause seeks a way of ensuring clarity on the powers and what sort of process would take place. We suggest that the powers of the Financial Policy Committee in the Financial Services Act 2012 should be amended to make it clear that a target should be set by the Treasury for the overall leverage of the United Kingdom’s financial system to encompass all the activities of those institutions that are originators of credit.