Commission Work Programme 2014

Debate between William Bain and Steve Baker

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bain]

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak and I do not want to do a survey of all of today’s British newspapers, but I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the main story on the front page of the Financial Times this morning was headlined “City warns UK over loss of EU influence”, so I think we are hearing precisely the voices of business, who want to promote job creation and who are expressing the view that isolating ourselves in the way that the Government are trying to do, in a vain attempt to placate the hon. Gentleman, is simply not going to work in our long-term interests.

There are several points I want to develop in the remainder of my remarks. First, on economic and monetary union, yesterday the International Monetary Fund’s world economic outlook predicted growth in the eurozone for this year at a mere 1% and for next year at an only slightly higher 1.4%. At the same time, there are 26.5 million people out of work across the EU28, and 5.6 million of them are under the age of 25. That is a youth unemployment rate of nearly 24%. That should shame all of us. It should represent a call to action for every politician who has influence to shape the EU’s priorities to focus on job creation for the next few years.

Over the year to last November our trade deficit with the EU rose to £3.2 billion and the continued low growth in the eurozone area was one of the main contributory factors to dampened demand for our manufacturing exports. By contrast, our trade in services, including financial services, is in surplus. So it is in the interests of business and workers here in the UK to see the fault-lines in economic and monetary union repaired by putting in place a strong set of common institutions such as a single resolution mechanism and processes to allow for the resolution of distressed banks in the eurozone area. The question of whether there should be a common deposit insurance guarantee, or commonly issued debt, is certainly a more divisive issue among the eurozone members, but now that a new coalition is in place in Berlin, we should at least begin to have greater certainty about Germany’s intentions on both those fronts.

We should also welcome the fact that, contrary to many expectations—not least from Members on the Opposition Benches—the eurozone has not broken up. Indeed, Latvia became its 18th member this month. Nevertheless, in this work programme the Commission has acted on the widespread sense among peoples in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Ireland that monetary union lacked a sufficiently social or democratic dimension, with little regard being given to the effects on inequality, wages and, most devastatingly of all, youth unemployment in some of the programmes imposed upon those member states in the name of deficit reduction. It is interesting to note that the Commission’s work programme refers to the further priority for work in this area in the coming 12 months.

As Commissioner Andor’s report today makes clear—this certainly was covered in The Daily Telegraph, to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred earlier—eurozone members should not be left with the only options being internal devaluations or wage cuts as the means of escape from any future downturns. The price for that would simply be paid by ordinary working people with substantially lower living standards. A eurozone with a strong fiscal union component will help to avoid that possibility in the future.

When Government Members visited Brussels in October last year we heard from the office of President Van Rompuy that eurozone member states now recognise that sharing a currency and a common interest rate was not enough to avoid the effects produced by the economic shock of the great recession. So plans are now being developed to establish limited pooled resources that could help share out or equalise economic demand when some states suffer a severe dent in their output. We should welcome that. It has also been proposed that a revision of some of the terms of the fiscal pact could allow eurozone states greater flexibility to boost demand through fiscal policy in times of economic trouble. We should also welcome those proposals.

In common with weak lending to small and medium enterprises in this country, the Commission should also focus in much greater depth on how the European Investment Bank increases lending to businesses in the coming months, so that Europe’s growth rate can be expanded. In that sense, there are real parallels between the debate on the flaws of monetary union in the eurozone and the debate that will take place in my constituency and the 58 other constituencies in Scotland on the future of the economic, political and fiscal union that is the United Kingdom, which will have its resolution this September. There is a strong recognition that a properly functioning currency union requires both fiscal and political union too.

Secondly, on markets for trade and future growth, the work programme refers to the potential for a second Single European Act to complete the free movement of goods and services in areas such as energy and telecommunications. This is vital so that the EU can establish a proper digital single market.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is wonderful to hear a Labour Member advocating the benefits of free trade. Does he agree that the whole world should be a single market, and will he therefore join me in lamenting the existence of so many barriers to free trade across the EU customs union?

[Mr Bain]

That is a very interesting intervention. The main issue is what influence we can have over the shaping of the rules. As people in Norway and Switzerland have discovered, the only way to have influence is to be in the organisation. Those who are not full members cannot expect a full say.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between William Bain and Steve Baker

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

The Bill matters greatly to my constituents in Glasgow because the financial services sector north of the border contributes nearly 8% towards Scotland’s GDP, which is the second highest in the UK after London, and 8.6% of jobs in Scotland are in the financial services sector. The Bill will affect a large number of savers, businesses and employees in Scotland.

I have to say, with regret more than anything else, that the Bill is desperately weak and disappointing and it will need substantial amendment in Committee if it is to provide the radical surgery that the banking and economic system needs. The truth is that our banking system is badly broken. It is failing to supply or boost demand for lending to businesses in key parts of the economy. As the Institute for Public Policy Research found in December, the remuneration packages within the industry have been responsible for a huge rise in inequality across our country.

It is disappointing that we have not had a commitment from the Government to introduce a proper financial transactions tax and that they have not shown leadership by pressing for that to be introduced at G20 level, given that we already have such a tax in this country in the form of the stamp duty that is paid on share transactions.

[Steve Baker]

Between 1997 and 2010, the broad measure of the money supply, M4, tripled. That new money had to go to somebody first. That meant that it widened wealth inequality. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that because the state encouraged this enormously elastic money supply and created wealth inequality, we now need more state intervention to try to fix it. That would be a disaster.

[Mr Bain]

I know that the Prime Minister has been very much a fan of a magic money tree. The Chancellor, by refusing to change course on fiscal policy and putting everything on to monetary policy, shows that the policy of the Government is to treat the Bank of England almost as if it were a magic money tree, so I am not sure of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

There is very little in the Bill on competition. There is nothing that would impose a fiduciary duty on the banks in relation to their clients’ money in the same way that company directors have in relation to company funds or lawyers in relation to clients’ funds, so there are huge deficiencies. There is also the great suspicion that the Bill waters down some of the key recommendations of the Vickers report. The maximum leverage that the Chancellor is prepared to accept is way beyond the Vickers recommendation. The Chancellor appears to be prepared to allow a leverage of 33 times, whereas Vickers’ recommendation was for only 25 times. That is because instead of adopting the Vickers report on the level of equity capital at 4% of assets, the Chancellor is going for the Basel III recommendations.

As I said, the IPPR, in a report published in December, examined the culture of greed and how the remuneration system got out of control in the banking system. For example, the top 0.5%, or even the top 0.1%, enormously enriched themselves because of the practices in the industry. That is one reason why it is regrettable that the Bill does not contain provisions for a banking code of conduct or to put ordinary employees of the banks on remuneration committees to ensure that there are annual binding shareholder votes on executive pay. Neither does it propose properly to enforce the legislation passed by the last Government to reveal how many people in the banking system earn more than £1 million a year. There are great areas where the Bill is enormously disappointing.

In terms of the overall reforms, we have three major issues of contention with the Bill as framed. First, too much of the detail of the Government’s policy is to be dealt with by delegated or secondary legislation and is not present in the Bill. Secondly, the Government are prepared to allow too much flexibility within the ring fence, and do not give consumers and taxpayers the assurances they deserve that the principle of too big to fail will not still exist within a regulatory system. Thirdly, the culture of the banking system is not changed enough by the Bill. There are insufficient steps to ensure the proper degree of lending to households and SMEs that is required.

To take that final point first, the figures we have seen on the national loan guarantee system, Project Merlin and funding for lending have one thing in common: the Government are not matching up to their promise and the banking system is inadequate to meet the needs of households and businesses. After a net growth in lending of just £0.9 billion in the third quarter of last year, net lending through funding for lending participating banks contracted by £2.4 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. Whereas Lloyds was drawing £3 billion through funding for lending, lending by Lloyds shrank by the same amount in the final quarter of the year. Whereas RBS has drawn £750 million, it decreased its lending by £1.7 billion in the same quarter. It is clear that funding for lending, as it has been conceived and is operating, is simply not providing the lending to small and medium-sized businesses. There is a missed opportunity in the Bill to change course and ensure that the system provides the support to businesses that is necessary if we are to have the growth that is the only means of cutting the deficit.

We also see from the bank data published last week insufficient detail on the breakdown of lending to households and businesses. However, we know that business investment fell by 1.2% in the last quarter of 2012, and it is clear that confidence in the economy is stubbornly low. There are still high levels of corporate surpluses, but the banking system is failing to deliver money to those businesses to start increasing orders, to deal with our low productivity and to restore confidence where it is most needed now.

It is also clear that there are unfortunately no provisions to establish immediately a British investment bank that would break the logjam of getting money out of corporate surpluses and flowing into the real economy and promoting orders and demand. Why have the Government persisted with this argument, even in the light of the proposal in the second report from the parliamentary commission for a secondary reserve power to ensure that where there are examples, or even the possibility, of the primary reserve power being circumvented by the banks, there is a reserve back-up power to break up the entire system if that is necessary in the national interests and to prevent financial collapse?

The commission’s report argued that the banking industry could indeed dilute the impact of the ring fence, and that not just the primary but the secondary reserve power was necessary in order to ensure that that did not occur and that we had proper enforcement of the ring fence. The Bill also introduces a requirement for directors of ring-fenced entities to be approved by the regulator, with such persons being subject to disciplinary action by the regulator if they have been involved in any contravention of the ring-fencing rules. It is clear that those powers should also be increased.

The problem with the Bill is that the devil is in the detail, but a huge amount of the detail is not apparent. One reason why the Chancellor said that he could not accept the secondary reserve power is that he claimed it would be anti-democratic. He said that it would not be present on the face of the Bill and it would not be fair to introduce that by delegated legislation. The question remains for the Minister: if that is the objection, why not put more of the detail into the Bill? Why not ensure that we can then have that secondary reserve power, which the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and the other members of the parliamentary commission deemed to be absolutely necessary to have confidence in our banking system? Then we would be able to move on in a spirit of consensus, instead of, with regret, having to point out the Bill’s great deficiencies.

The other shortcoming of the Bill is the inconsistent treatment of derivatives. Those were described by the US investment guru, if we can call him that, Warren Buffett as financial weapons of mass destruction, but sadly the Government have yielded to some of the more regressive parts of the financial lobby and will permit banks to locate simple derivative products—whatever simple means—within their retail banking operations. They should look at that again.

The Bill is weak and does not learn the real lessons from the financial crisis. It does not learn the lesson that we have a very small number of very large banks, whereas other countries, such as Germany, France, Canada and United States, have a more diverse range of successful financial institutions, including co-operatives, credit unions and Government savings banks. There is little in the Bill that would help to expand the thriving credit union movement. I recently visited credit unions in my constituency and others in Glasgow city centre that are providing mortgages and expanding the range of financial services in a responsible way given the scale of financial exclusion that many of our constituents face. Having different types of banks in an economy introduces different incentives and gives the public real choice. The point is not to have more banks competing on the same business model of short-term speculative profit, but to have competition across different business models with diversity of form and diversity of function.

Unfortunately, the Government refuse to listen to those points and have taken insufficient steps to make the reforms that our country needs. I hope that in Committee they will listen to the arguments again, because our constituents, businesses and the people who save and invest in our financial system deserve no less.

Banking Competition

Debate between William Bain and Steve Baker

Thursday 12th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Chope.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this important debate, which is of great interest and importance to all our constituents.

Our banking system is badly broken: Members of this House know it, the public know it and the industry knows it. Almost four years on from the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the part-nationalisation of two major banks in the UK, our banking system is failing to support the wider economy with the lending that is required to promote growth; there is still regulatory uncertainty over the mis-selling of derivatives; there is insufficient competition; and pay and bonuses in the banking sector are rocketing out of control. Last month, a major UK clearing bank could not even ensure that employees received their salaries or that businesses could pay their bills on time. The public are therefore right to demand further radical change and to seek new entrants to the banking sector.

Despite being given support—both directly and in guarantees from the taxpayer—on the awesome scale of £1.4 trillion during this crisis, and despite our central bank having printed £325 billion of new money since 2009 through quantitative easing, with up to another £50 billion on the way following the decision of the Monetary Policy Committee last Thursday, the banking system is failing to bolster growth or to provide a satisfactory supply of credit.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

On that point, I notice that the banks are simultaneously failing to provide savers with a decent return. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is an astonishing failure of a system that is supposed to act as an intermediary between savers and those who wish to borrow money for productive uses. It is astonishing.

[Mr Bain]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful case.

Bank lending to businesses fell by 11% between 2008 and 2010 and it has continued to slump since, with bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses having fallen for five consecutive quarters. It is small wonder that in such circumstances economic demand in the UK is at rock bottom. In the G20 this year, economic demand is lower only in the eurozone, the Czech Republic and Hungary. As the Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote about the financial system in an article in Vanity Fair in January:

“We have poured money into the banks, without restrictions, without conditions, and without a vision of the kind of banking system we want and need. We have, in a phrase, confused ends with means. A banking system is supposed to serve society, not the other way around.”

Sadly, the same is true of the financial sector in the UK too.

Studies by the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank powerfully demonstrate that financial systems in which there is more banking competition with institutions less dependent on wholesale funding are less prone to systemic shocks of the sort the UK and others experienced in 2008. The banking sector has expanded hugely in the past five decades. In 2010, the assets of the 10 largest UK banks had soared to 459% of GDP. Barclays assets exploded from 10% to 110% of GDP in the same period. That size, the implicit public guarantee and the resultant lower borrowing costs allow the big banks to maintain a large competitive advantage over any small competitors trying to enter the market. It comes as no surprise that business organisations such as the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and EEF are calling for more competition in the banking system.

The European Commission found in its inquiry into the financial system in 2007 that the retail banking sector accounts for more than 50% of total banking activity, measured by the gross income indicator, but that banks face greater pressure on profits where consumers are more mobile. In this country, the Office of Fair Trading issued a report on the banks in 2008, finding that many consumers do not know the fees associated with their accounts, and that three quarters of them are not aware of the credit interest rate, because of both a lack of transparency in fees and their self-evident complexity. It also established that few consumers monitor the account market to switch to accounts offering better conditions. Only 6% of account customers had switched in the previous year and 61% of customers had held their main account for more than 10 years. It also found cross-subsidies from those consumers who incur insufficient fund charges, who are more likely to be in the socially or economically vulnerable categories, to those who do not—those on higher incomes or who have reasonable levels of savings with the banks—which create significant market distortions, as well as resulting in social unfairness.

On the structure of the banking system, the Independent Commission on Banking chaired by Sir John Vickers had a limited remit and was unable to consider the level of support that the banking system provides to growth in the economy, the existence of potentially criminal practices, the nature of the products being traded by banks, or the culture of greed exposed by excessive bonuses and pay. That is why we need to consider further whether the Vickers proposals for ring fences and higher capital buffers will be enough to protect against future scandals, or whether a complete separation of retail and investment banking services, or the break-up of those institutions, with the creation of new banks, is the only answer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, there have been recent additions to the challenger bank market in the form of Metro Bank, and Virgin Money’s acquisition of Northern Rock. The Lloyds Banking Group’s divestment of branches will bolster the role of the Co-operative bank as a stronger mutual institution, too, which I welcome.

The Bank of England revealed in a report in 2010 that the implicit taxpayer subsidy to the banks could be as much as £100 billion, and a further Bank of England study from this year emphasises that that is largely a transfer of resources from Government and taxpayers to creditors, staff and shareholders. The effect of that could be to allow the amount of risk adopted by protected banks to rise. A more comprehensive examination of the banking system would make it possible to determine the underlying issue of whether it currently offers sufficient value for that investment by the taxpayer. There is much evidence from the IMF and the London School of Economics that it has not done so, and that higher pay and profits have been the principal results, at the cost of a slower flow of credit.

Interest rate swap arrangements that were mis-sold could affect up to 28,000 small businesses in Britain. The LIBOR scandal will undoubtedly draw in other financial institutions, and create the potential for court cases involving billions of pounds in compensation awards. Morgan Stanley produced figures today revealing that the global cost to the banking sector of every basis point of LIBOR suppression could be $6 billion, or $400 million for every bank affected. Other countries have been better able to survive the financial crisis because their banking systems have more competition, more effective direction from Government, and more socially beneficial lending practices. In Germany, the state-owned investment bank KfW last year provided €11.4 billion in new loans to small and medium-sized enterprises, focused on exports and job creation. Because of their statutory duty to put the good of the local economy over the maximisation of profit, the local savings banks, or Sparkassen, continued to lend even in the depths of the 2008-09 slump in output. While the major commercial banks in Germany cut lending to businesses by 10%, the Sparkassen increased lending by 17% between 2006-2011. Three in every four SMEs in Germany have links with the Sparkassen. A system whose ownership and remit were more diverse would help SMEs in the United Kingdom, too.

In a very good discussion of the banking system on “Newsnight” last night, it was startling that Jim O’Neill, the investment banker from Goldman Sachs, powerfully made the case for a state investment bank in this country, to support economically important industries. A more comprehensive examination of the banking system, including its structure and competition, could also consider the case for making the bank balance sheet levy more progressive, as Duncan Weldon, the chief economist of the TUC, has recently proposed, and whether it should be larger for bigger banking institutions, while greater competition would be promoted through a lower levy for smaller banks.

Lack of competition is also leading to a culture of excessive pay and bonuses within the banking system. The work of the High Pay Commission last year exposed the fact that within Barclays, while the average pay of employees rose by 866% in the three decades from 1980, the pay of top directors in that bank rose by a staggering 4,899%. Top directors’ pay at Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group rose from 14 times that of ordinary tellers working in the bank’s branches to some 75 times that of an average Barclays or Lloyds employee’s pay by 2011. That is the extent of the culture of greed that has grown in our banking system.

In other countries, over the decades, the need for a wider examination has been clear. The Pecora commission, founded in the United States in 1932, under an independent chief counsel, led to the uncovering of the reasons behind the Wall street crash of 1929, and to radical legislation to separate retail from investment banking under the Glass-Steagall Act. It created new criminal penalties and re-regulated the stock exchange. The work of that commission safeguarded the US financial system for the next fifty years. Afterwards, in his memoirs, entitled “Wall Street Under Oath”, Ferdinand Pecora wrote of the ills of the banking system across the world in the 1930s:

“Had there been full disclosure of what was being done in furtherance of these schemes, they could not long have survived the fierce light of publicity and criticism. Legal chicanery and pitch darkness were the banker’s stoutest allies.”

It is our constituents, particularly the poor and working families with children, and most of all the growing army of unemployed and underemployed, who are paying the price for the recession—the longest since the 1870s—that has resulted from this financial crisis. They did not cause the recession, but they have been asked to shoulder the heaviest burden, while the super-wealthy at the top of the financial services sector have continued to enrich themselves, and our banking sector is being protected from the radical structural reforms we now need. The very least that we as parliamentarians can do is to give them the fullest account of why our banking system is so badly broken, why it lacks effective competition, and why it is failing to promote any kind of recovery or sense of responsibility from people at the top. Only then can we begin the task of creating a banking system that serves the people of this country, and not the other way around.