Banking (Responsibility and Reform)
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said that we must reward the risk takers, but is not the problem and the reason for this debate the fact that the risk takers took too many risks with the world economy and completely destroyed it, and that while destroying the world economy, they got massive bonuses, pay and entitlements to which they were not entitled? That is why we need to look at these risk takers, who he says are the wealth creators.
Opposition Members have no problem with business or with people who want to work hard, achieve, create jobs and stimulate the economy, but it is important to remember—this is what this debate is about—that, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his party conference speech last year, there are producers and there are predators. As always, those comments were taken out of context, but what he talked about is what the Prime Minister now talks about: responsible capitalism and responsibility in society.
In the light of that, we are having this debate, which is not surprising—in the light of that, we are having this debate. I repeat myself because it is important to know why we are having the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) said, this debate on the crisis is timely but, more importantly, the question is: how do we prevent the problem from reoccurring? We should be concentrating on that, instead of the point scoring that we have seen.
We realise that there have been problems with the regulation of the banking and the financial services over the past 20 or 30 years. As my hon. Friend said, the Opposition have accepted responsibility and acknowledged that the Labour Government could have done more to regulate the sector, but as has been pointed out no one in the Conservative party at the time complained or argued that regulation should be tighter—if anything, they asked for even less regulation. Nevertheless, they continue to say, “We didn’t do anything.” We have accepted our mistakes, but Government Members made them as well. Furthermore, as everyone knows, the relaxation of regulation started in the ’80s, when a Conservative Government were in power. It is about time that they apologised for getting this whole thing going.
I do not want to get into a party ding-dong. I want to talk about what we can do to help to create a situation in which businesses and banks can work properly and the country can prosper. The Opposition have argued that the Walker review, which states that, if a banker’s remuneration is more than £1 million, that information should be published, should be implemented as soon as possible. That, coupled with the recommendations of the independent High Pay Commission, should be implemented in full, with investors and pension fund managers required to disclose how they vote on remuneration decisions, so that those paying into pension funds know where their money is going. Additionally, to boost transparency, the Government should publish figures setting out the largest pay ratios.
Another thing that we should be doing is using our influence in the banks in which the taxpayer has a stake to restrain excesses and promote good practices. Where the Government—the state—have discretion, they should intervene, such as with Network Rail recently. We should introduce a framework for fair pay across the economy, including through employee representation on remuneration committees and measures to enable greater shareholder activism. We should repeat the tax on large bank bonuses and use the money to get 100,000 young people into work. In tough times, when there is less money around, fairness matters more than ever. Instead of providing leadership, the Government have been dragging their feet on tackling excessive pay and rewards for failure. They have taken 20 months to come forward with any plans, and they are delaying even those that they are implementing. That is in stark contrast to the autumn statement, which took three times as much from families with children as it did from the bankers.
As we know, Robert Jenkins, a member of the Bank of England’s interim Financial Policy Committee, told the Select Committee on the Treasury:
“Every £1 billion of less bonus would support £20 billion of additional small business lending.”
I urge the Government to act on that, and to support Project Merlin—which we do not think has been as successful as it should have been—to ensure that the banks involved in the scheme lend more. Evidence has shown that investment and credit lending by those banks has decreased by 6% in real terms, whereas investing and giving more credit would be a real step to boost the economy. At the end of the day, some of the banks have been bailed out with public money. They and the Government should be doing more to—
Summer Adjournment
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I want to talk about the innovative and excellent work done by Fortalice house in my constituency. Before I explain why I believe that its work should interest Back Benchers as well as Ministers, let me give some statistics for domestic violence.
Domestic abuse accounts for almost 25% of recorded violent crime. An average of two women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner, 30% of domestic violence starts during pregnancy, women are assaulted an average of 35 times before seeking help, and every six seconds a woman is assaulted in her home. Those are staggering statistics in a modern, advanced, civilised society such as ours.
Fortalice house, which has existed for three years, accommodates up to 22 women and up to 70 children in fully furnished, self-contained flats with 24-hour supervision. Its ethos involves not just providing physical shelter, but re-educating women and children so that they can change their own patterns of behaviour. Its staff work with women to deal with issues such as alcohol, drugs, living skills, relationships, money and physical health, and to motivate them to take responsibility for their own mental and emotional health. The skills that they teach include managing money and using IT, sewing, and cooking healthy food. As a result of their work, in the last year only 5% of women who went into Fortalice house went back to the perpetrators of violence: it had a 95% success rate. Staff also provide practical help, filling in forms and liaising with different agencies to ensure that the ladies receive the benefits to which they are entitled, which helps them to look after themselves and their children.
The work of Fortalice house is, by nature, people-intensive, and funding cuts of more than 18% will have a severe impact on its ability to deliver the excellent services that it currently provides. Domestic violence is an issue in Bolton, where, between April 2010 and March 2011, there were 8,160 incidents of domestic violence, more than in any other area in Greater Manchester. Twenty per cent. of recorded crime in Bolton is domestic violence, and 50% is alcohol-related. I know that there are budgetary constraints, but I urge Home Office Ministers to recognise that some of the work that is being done is so vital and crucial that it must be supported. I ask the Home Office to consider not just funding Fortalice house so that it can continue its work, but enabling that work to be extended to other domestic violence refuge centres throughout the country. Ultimately more money will be saved, because prevention is always better than cure.
Finally, I invite Ministers to come and see for themselves the excellent work being done at Fortalice house, and ask them again to consider providing resources so that domestic violence refuges—
Finance Bill
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Bruce
I will give way—[Hon. Members: “No!”]
Moreover, if we rise to that challenge through the provision of a transferable allowance, as suggested by the new clause, we would do so in a way that makes it easier for one parent to stay at home for the children, which parents value and from which children benefit. That is also a matter of women’s rights, for it is often women who will exercise greater choice and flexibility. Women want that choice.
A 2008 YouGov poll found that 88% of parents think that more should be done to help parents who wish to stay at home and bring up their children in the early years, and 97% of them agree that the Government should do more in this area. Furthermore—this is of huge importance—the relative costs of introducing a transferable allowance are small when compared with the huge costs of family breakdown. I quoted those figures earlier.
Yasmin Qureshi
No one is saying that there is anything wrong with marriage. Of course, one should encourage it. My parents were married, and I am married. No one is objecting to people getting married or saying that we should be telling people to get married. However, a fundamental problem with the new clause is that it effectively discriminates against one set of people. Why should a man and a woman who live together and have children be less well off or be discriminated against, compared with a married couple? Why would we wish to create discrimination between those groups of people?
Jim Shannon
People’s interpretations of these issues are different; we see things in different ways and have different opinions. I do not necessarily agree with what the hon. Lady has said, but there are issues to be addressed.
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Does the Minister know how much folic acid costs?
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I know that time is short, so I intend to be quite brief, although I apologise in advance for not allowing any interventions, as a number of colleagues still wish to speak.
I endorse and echo the sentiments expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have explained in detail why the child trust fund and the health in pregnancy grant are important and why we need to retain them. I want to deal with the three reasons given by the Government for why they have brought forward this piece of legislation. The first reason is that they have to make these cuts and that the Bill is the only way to do so, because of financial difficulties. Paul Krugman, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), recently said that the Government’s cuts are ideologically driven, not driven by economic necessity. Therefore, economics has nothing to do with the reason for making the cuts in this Bill.
Secondly, we are told that the schemes are being cut because they are universal benefits, benefitting the rich and poor alike. However, if that is the argument, why should the Bill not be amended to say that such benefits should be means-tested, so that those who need them can keep them? That would make the Government’s case more logical. I suggest that the Government are using the argument about this being a universal benefit, even though they do not do so in regard to the winter fuel allowance—I want to put on record that I am not against the winter fuel allowance being universally available—because it is well known that people of pension age are the most likely to vote, while those who receive income support have the lowest tendency to vote. Perhaps there is an element of self-interest there. That would explain why the Government think it is fine to abolish one universal benefit, the child trust fund, but wrong to abolish the winter fuel allowance.
It has been said that the child trust fund has not led to an increase in the savings culture in our society, and that it was intended for children to use when they reached 18 and were grown up. We know that the savings culture has gone from our society over the past 20 or 30 years and that people are saving less and less. However, many people in their early 20s to mid-30s find that having children is an encouragement to save, and that is bringing saving back into our society. To suggest that the argument about the savings culture does not apply because a child does not benefit from the trust fund until they are 18 is also wrong.
The child trust fund continues to be among the most successful Government savings schemes ever. Two million people are now contributing to 4.5 million accounts, resulting in more than £2 billion of assets under management and attracting more than £22 million a month in regular contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) pointed out, the majority of this activity is undertaken by families with an income of less than £50,000. We have seen that the number of people saving has increased, and the Government should be thinking about how to make that very successful programme even better. We should be trying to find ways of extending and improving the system, not abolishing it.
I shall turn now to the health in pregnancy grant. If someone is well-off, so be it: becoming pregnant probably causes no inconvenience or difficulty for them. Having a child results in many extra expenditures, however, and the Government should surely be able to afford giving even a little extra money to those on very low incomes. They have told us that they have introduced a levy on bankers’ bonuses, but if this is all about finance, why can they not increase the levy just a little more? I am part of a group called the Robin Hood tax alliance, which contends that if we were to tax the bankers a bit more, we could easily get £45 billion. That would be more than enough to pay for the child trust fund and the health in pregnancy grant. The money is there in the system; it is just a question of whether there is any will on the part of the Government to use it in the right way.
The argument that we have to make these cuts just does not wash. This is really sad, and I am surprised at Members on the Government Benches. I thought that there were more compassionate Conservatives out there who would think that these benefits could be retained. If they really do not want to provide them on a universal basis, they could at least target them at people on lower incomes.
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on making her maiden speech. As a fellow north-west MP, I am sure that we will work well in future for the betterment of the north-west region.
Mindful of what you said earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will keep my speech short. I shall not go into the history of Equitable Life, because everyone in the Chamber is aware of the history, nor shall I go into the merits or demerits of Sir John Chadwick’s report or the ombudsman’s report. I want to talk about my constituent, Mr Barri Sharrat, who was made redundant by his company and whose pension was moved to an Equitable Life policy, which was to be his main source of income on retiring. Mr Sharrat put his trust and faith, along with years of savings, into the hands of Equitable Life to build a secure retirement. I want Mr Sharrat and millions like him to be compensated.
I agree with the ombudsman’s view that people should be put in a position similar to that which they would have been in had Equitable Life not collapsed. I welcome the Bill and would urge the Government not to short-change the people on a promise that they made before the general election. However, I am afraid that the argument about money just does not carry any weight, because before the general election there were many debates about the country’s finances. Therefore, the level of debt was well known to everyone. Knowing that information, Members who are now in government made a promise that they would honour the ombudsman’s recommendation. I would ask them to continue to honour that promise, and then all those present who have taken a sanctimonious approach to the issue can be properly sanctimonious about it.
I urge the Government to make the Bill fair and effective. To make the legislation effective, they should put the independence of the compensation scheme on a statutory basis. There should be an independent appeal process, and a timetable—a short one—for making payments should be set out. The criteria by which compensation is to be paid should be made clear and simple. Again, I urge the Government to accept the ombudsman’s recommendation that people should be put into the position that they would have been in had Equitable Life not gone bust.
Mel Stride
I just wanted to say that it is my understanding that the ombudsman’s report contains the recommendation that the public finances should be taken into account when coming up with the final compensation to be paid.
Yasmin Qureshi
The public finances may be taken into account, but it is my understanding that the Bill proposes to go along with Sir John Chadwick’s proposal, which was not a very good one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) said, the compensation does not have paid in the next few months or even the next year; it can be spaced out over five years or perhaps even 10 years, so that people can be given the compensation that they deserve. As has been said, the ombudsman has made a recommendation, but it is for us here in Parliament to do right by our constituents, and that means going back and giving the appropriate level of compensation.