Amendment of the Law

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I want to talk about how we progress from the painful but very necessary deficit cuts to achieving growth that is balanced and sustainable. However, I shall start by addressing the shadow Chancellor’s attack. His starting point seems to be that the past is another country, and that 2010 was year zero. I am afraid, however, that all his rather bumptious self-confidence cannot conceal his massive legacy: the biggest deficit in the G20, an overweight and damaged banking system, and an economy that was hopelessly unbalanced.

The right hon. Gentleman’s criticism is built around the downgrading of the growth forecast, but before we get any more of this “Growth is down! Growth is down!”, let us remember what happened to growth in the last two years of the Labour Government—it was down to minus 4%. By the last quarter of the Labour Government, GDP was back where it was in 2006. Indeed, if we look at growth on a per capita basis—that is, living standards—we find that five years of Labour Government produced a decline in per capita incomes in Britain. The only time in history that this had happened previously was shortly after the first world war, so we do not need any lessons on growth. As the Chancellor pointed out yesterday, the European Union and the IMF has Britain’s projected growth comparing favourably with that of France—the shadow Chancellor’s favourite country—Italy, Spain, the eurozone and the whole of the European Union of 27. Our projection is better than any of those.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

This morning at the Treasury Committee, the former chief economist in the Cabinet Office, Jonathan Portes, remarked that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has also pointed out—“The Plan for Growth” that the Business Secretary has published does not show the average growth from 2000 to 2010. Why is that? Presumably the Business Secretary knows the numbers, so does he agree that the performance was not terribly bad, which is precisely what Jonathan Portes said?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

I cannot see how it can be ideological to have a public sector that, by the end of this Parliament, will have a share of GDP comparable to what it was when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) became Prime Minister. Whatever criticisms the Opposition might want to make, ideology has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The comments of the international organisations are reflected in those of the business community. The former head of the CBI has often been quoted on this, because he was critical of the Government. He had some strong criticisms, which we have taken to heart. However, it is worth remembering how he started the speech that is now so frequently quoted. He said:

“This coalition Government has been single-minded—some might even say ruthless—in its approach to spending cuts…That policy is strongly supported by business, on the grounds that sound public finances are an essential foundation for a sound economy.”

I want to deal more specifically with the suggestion that we are cutting too much too soon. The shadow Chancellor has quoted me on this, and he is quite right. I said on “Newsnight”, and I will continue to say, that there is a serious economic debate that we must constantly have on striking the right balance between not choking off recovery and not risking a financial crisis. That is the calculation that we are having to make. Our approach has been vindicated by the evidence, and the evidence is the response of the financial markets. The bond yields, which are important not just as an indicator but because they set the cost of capital for business and investment, are 3.5% for 10-year bonds, which is close to the rates in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, compared with 5.2% in Spain, 7.5% in Portugal, 9% in Ireland and 12% in Greece. That is a fair comparison with what they were a year ago when the Labour party was in power. Since then, the differential has widened by 1.5% in respect of Spain, 3.5% for Portugal and 5% for Greece and Ireland. In real terms, the cost of capital—long-term capital in this country—is now zero. The reason why that matters was summarised many years ago by John Maynard Keynes. Labour Members may revere his memory, as do some of us. During the crisis of the 1930s, Keynes wrote to Roosevelt:

“The turn of the tide in Great Britain is largely attributable to the reduction in the long-term rate of interest.”

That is the basis on which we have to take account of interest rates.

[Mr Umunna]

Of course Keynes also said that if the facts changed, he changed his mind. Does the Business Secretary agree with the Energy Secretary who said that the Government should not be “lashed to the mast” of their economic policy? On 29 November, the Chancellor said that he would stick to his fiscal mandate to allow the Monetary Policy Committee maximum flexibility to loosen monetary policy. If inflation remains as per the central prediction at the moment, I see no real prospect of the MPC being able to loosen monetary policy further. That means that if growth is sluggish, the Government will surely have to look to a contingency plan. That seems to be what the Energy Secretary was suggesting. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

[Vince Cable]

I am not sure that what Keynes said was a matter of changing his mind in response to a change in fact. He was stating one of the basic principles of Keynesian economics—that the cost of capital has to be kept low.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Before I make my substantive point, let me make two observations, on growth and employment and on business confidence.

I do not think there is any disagreement between the two sides of the House on the need to reduce our debts. The controversial issue is the time frame within which we should do that. If we want to reduce the deficit, we will obviously need to produce growth and jobs, because people who are out of work do not pay income tax and we have to pay benefit. I believe that the cost of every 100,000 people out of work is about £500 million in benefit payments. According to the latest figures, 4,000 people in my constituency are claiming jobseeker’s allowance. I hope that we can get them back to work very soon.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s downgrading of the growth forecast has been widely reported, but its revision of its autumn estimate of the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants has not been commented on. The OBR revised upwards its forecast of the number of JSA claimants in this year and the following four years. For this year, unemployment has been revised upwards, and the number of people claiming JSA has been revised up by 50,000 compared with the autumn forecast. For next year, the forecast has been revised up by 120,000, and for 2013 it has been revised up by 130,000.

[Angela Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such statistics say nothing about the tragedy that unemployment visits on the lives of individuals, and especially on the lives of our young people and on their prospects for the future?

[Mr Umunna]

I absolutely agree. As a former employment lawyer, I am well aware of the huge impact that loss of work has on individuals and their families.

We are entitled to ask why the unemployment forecasts have been revised upwards. That has happened because of sluggish growth, and the OBR’s autumn forecast clearly states that the sluggish growth has been caused in no small part by the extreme fiscal consolidation embarked on by the Government. Therefore, there are more people out of work, claiming benefit and not paying income tax due to the policies of this Government. The OBR has said that.

The Chancellor’s strategy on business confidence and investment is clear. As the Government hack off chunks of the public sector—causing, of course, mass public sector job losses—he says that the private sector will automatically step in to fill the gap, and he foresees private sector growth fuelled by a boom in exports and business investment. Business confidence is key, and since this Government took office confidence has fallen. The latest Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and Grant Thornton UK business confidence monitor shows a continuing downward trend in business confidence in this country for the fourth consecutive quarter. I sincerely hope that that confidence returns, because the people in the communities I represent in Streatham and parts of Clapham, Balham, Tulse Hill and Brixton will be among those who suffer.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend share the concerns that were raised with me yesterday and today by many green businesses that this Budget could have been an opportunity for growth specifically in the green sector, yet the ability of the green investment bank to lend has been delayed until 2015—if it will be able to lend at all? The Government talked yesterday about the green deal, but there are no details about what incentives to many householders across the country might be.

[Mr Umunna]

I agree, and my hon. Friend’s comments bring me neatly to the topic of the Business Secretary’s document, “The Plan for Growth.”

Aside from the two observations that I wanted to make, I want in particular to comment on the document’s proposal to scrap the planned extension of the right to request flexible working to parents of 17-year-olds. That has been cited as a way to ease the burdens of employment regulation on business. “The Plan for Growth” says the administrative burden of extending that flexible working will cost about £500,000. That figure is taken from the Government’s own impact assessment of the measure, published in October last year.

Although “The Plan for Growth” mentions the £500,000 figure, it does not tell the whole story. The assessment agrees that there are additional procedural costs to business in extending the right to request flexible working, which it quantifies as £1.3 million, including the administrative costs I have just mentioned. In addition, there is a £975,000 cost in making adjustments to working patterns. However, that is far outweighed by the savings to business, which are listed in the Government’s impact assessment: £1.1 million from higher productivity, £1.2 million from lower labour turnover and £63,000 from reduced absenteeism, totalling £2.4 million in the first year. Overall, the “net present value” of introducing the measure—the benefit to business—would be £41.2 million. Again that is not my figure, but the Government’s. Therefore, on pure cost grounds, I do not understand how that decision makes any sense.

It is a shame that the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs is not here, because he signed off the impact assessment with the following statement:

“I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that…it represents a fair and reasonable view of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the policy, and…the benefits justify the costs”.

Never mind the costs of the measure, because there are some things in society that we do not price up and put a market value on—one is the time we spend with our family. That is presumably why the Prime Minister said on 22 January 2010 that he intended to head up the

“most family friendly Government we’ve ever had”

and why, in the lead-up to the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“We are not casual about the pressure that many parents feel”.

The impact assessment is clear, because under the heading “key non-monetised benefits”, it says that the measure will improve health and well-being, help employees achieve a better work-life balance and help improve family life. For me and my constituents, that is incredibly important, because we face a problem whereby a minority of our young people are engaging in serious violence. A number of stabbings and shootings are taking place in my constituency almost every month. There are many reasons for that, and there is no one magic solution to resolving these issues, but I am clear that we need to help adults spend more time with their families. Extending the right to request flexible working to parents of 17-year-olds—teenagers in that key group—is essential to helping them provide the guidance that many young people need in my community.

[Vince Cable]

rose—

[Mr Umunna]

I will give way shortly.

I have come to the Chamber from this morning’s Treasury Committee sitting, where I asked Jonathan Portes, who until February was chief economist at the Cabinet Office, about this issue. I asked him whether abolishing the right to request flexible working for the parents of 17-year-olds would make a big difference in increasing GDP or growth. He made it very clear that scrapping the extension will “do nothing for growth”. I then asked HSBC’s chief economist whether he would be revising his GDP figures as a result of the scrapping of the measure, and he told me that he would not.

This measure seems to be a gimmick, which tends to suggest that the Government think that watering down employee rights is a substitute for a properly thought out growth strategy. All the figures I have just presented and all the arguments I have just made for the introduction of the extension, which was planned for April, are in the Government’s own impact assessment of the measure. Will the Government think again about it? I grant that they do not and will not accept our arguments to revise their plan for fiscal consolidation, but I suggest that it would be very wise for them to think again on this small measure.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Gavin Williamson, who has until 5.42 pm—about three minutes. I am sorry about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, the Governor of the Bank of England is one of many people who have pointed out that there was no credible plan when we came into office and that we have put a credible plan into place.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Chancellor and other Ministers have cited investor confidence as the reason why they cannot revise their original plan for fiscal consolidation, but Jonathan Portes, the immediate former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, said:

“This is not a justification, economic or otherwise, for”

not changing policy. He said that

“it relies on an odd view of market psychology, one that says markets have more confidence in governments that never adjust policy, even when it is sensible, from an economic perspective, to change course.”

Why is he wrong?

[Mr Osborne]

Our country’s credit rating was on negative watch when we came to office and as a country we did not have a credible plan to reduce the budget deficit. Since that plan has been put in place we have been able to see the effects because our market interest rates and our spreads over bunds have come down. We have interest rates that are closer to Germany’s despite, as I have said, having a budget deficit left to us that was higher than either Greece’s or Portugal’s.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I will be brief, as I know many other Members want to speak in this short debate.

I am glad that the Opposition have chosen the subject of fuel prices, as it is an issue that affects all our constituents and MPs of all parties have already urged the Government to take action. I have signed cross-party early-day motions 1252 and 1241, which call for progress on a fair fuel stabiliser. Along with colleagues of all parties, I have also supported the Federation of Small Businesses in its campaigns. There is a great deal of ground for cross-party consensus on this issue. We all recognise that the cost of living is rising and that fuel prices play an important part in it. We all recognise that the soaring costs of petrol and diesel have knock-on effects on the price of everything—from food and clothing and the cost of getting to work to the cost of educating children.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the rising cost of living. The big difference between now and a few months ago is, in many ways, the rate of inflation. The Governor of the Bank of England has been clear that he has no way of further loosening monetary policy right now. The talk before Christmas was about such further loosening, perhaps with a further round of quantitative easing. That is clearly no longer an option, which means that the only option is to alter fiscal policy, yet we have heard not a single word from the Minister to suggest that there will be any change in fiscal policy. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government are right to sit on their hands when they are in a position to act to relieve the burden on people like my constituents?

[Mr Walker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that long intervention, but we are likely to hear what action the Government are planning in the Budget next week, which I would not want to pre-empt at this stage, so I shall continue with my argument.

There would be no disagreement about the underlying premise of today’s motion—that fuel prices drive up the cost of living. We can legitimately debate the action that Governments are able to take. Like many other Members, I believe the Government should take action on fuel prices by introducing a fair fuel stabiliser and by looking at whether they can put off any increase in fuel duty suggested under the last Government’s escalator policy. It is vital to take into account the real impact on the cost of living but, perhaps even more importantly, the cost to the economy of the rising price of petrol at the pumps.

In fact, having read the detailed response of the Office for Budget Responsibility to the Government’s initial suggestion of a fair fuel stabiliser, I believe that it strongly makes the case for intervention in the fuel price. What the OBR showed was that, contrary to the belief that Government revenues rise as a result of higher fuel prices, the depressing effect on the economy, output and therefore tax receipts, along with the impact on inflation, mean that in the long term, Government net revenues are hurt by higher prices. While that might make more challenging the worthy aim of coming up with a revenue-neutral stabiliser, it clearly shows that success in limiting fuel price rises will bring long-term dividends to Government in terms of tax receipts and lower inflation. The real lesson of the OBR’s report is that the Government need to act on fuel prices, through the fuel duty, to avoid a substantial loss of revenue through economic growth. I am confident that that lesson will be taken into account when we receive next week’s Budget—a Budget for growth in the UK.

I know that the Government have already promised action in remote and rural areas, which I welcome, but I represent an urban constituency that has also been badly affected by rising prices, so I want to remind the Government of the need for action everywhere. As a county town, Worcester’s economy is affected by high fuel prices in rural areas, but our city suffers from higher prices than many other urban areas around it.

My constituents have often pointed out that there is a substantial differential of around 5p a litre between prices in Worcester and prices in Gloucester or Birmingham, just a short drive away. Driving as regularly as I do between Westminster and Worcester in my small diesel car, I feel this price differential very directly and often find it is as cheap to fill up at a motorway service station as it would be in my own constituency. The website petrolprices.com quotes prices as high as £1.45 a litre of diesel in Worcester today compared with an average of £1.39 in Gloucester just 28 miles away or £1.38 in Birmingham. I therefore urge Ministers to look into the differential pricing around the country, whereby some areas, whether urban or rural, pay much more for their fuel, and to assess what can be done to address the problem.

I certainly accept that people in rural areas have greater need for their cars, but I urge Ministers to accept that action on fuel prices across the board will benefit the whole economy. We have seen in previous fuel crises that when fuel prices spike, economic growth slows down, both globally and domestically.

I therefore support taking action on the cost of fuel, but I do not support this Opposition motion, which I believe is poorly targeted and opportunistic. It hits the wrong target in focusing on the impact of VAT and only touching lightly on the far more significant issue of fuel duty. Perhaps that is because the Labour party did so much to encourage the escalation of fuel duty when it was in power. As the Government amendment points out, the Labour Government planned for six consecutive fuel duty rises up to 2014 on top of the 12 increases they made when they were in power. It is fair to say that those increases, like the introduction of the fuel duty escalator under the Conservatives, were made in a different environment from today’s, when the uncertainty in the middle east is adding to the upward pressure on prices. There has been no indication, however, that Labour has shifted from its ideological attachment to ever-higher duties on fuel, which rose from 36p to nearly 58p when they were in government, with Labour Members boasting that they left the duty intact at 65% of the cost of fuel at the end of their term.

It is cynical and opportunistic for a party whose last Chancellor laid the groundwork for the increase in VAT to be lashing out at its implementation, and it is beyond the bounds of belief that Labour Members should want to earmark all the proceeds of a bank levy they failed to make on to a rebate they know they could not have given—even if they had been in power. It is even more astonishing, when they have already suggested other plans to spend this levy many times over through opposing changes to child benefit, that they suggest funding more capital spending and reversing changes to tax credits. The Opposition motion has no credibility on this very important issue.

I urge the Government to act on fuel prices, but I urge them to do so through a fair fuel stabiliser on which there is a broad political consensus, and through looking at the broader case for changes in fuel duty to reflect the economic circumstances of today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

It is extremely important that the Government are seen to act on the recommendations of the Independent Banking Commission, when they come out, in the national interest rather than in the interest of any particular sector. Does the Chancellor think that it is wise for the Minister, the noble Lord Green, an immediate former chair of the British Bankers Association, to sit on the Cabinet Committee that makes decisions on such matters? He joined that Committee last month, just two months after leaving the chairmanship of HSBC, a bank for which he worked for more than 25 years and which will be profoundly affected by the decisions that the Committee makes.

[Mr Osborne]

First, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the creation of the Independent Banking Commission. I hope that all hon. Members have an open mind about the recommendations that it will make, and that they agree that we should not close off any options until we have heard from John Vickers. He is doing an excellent job, and we await his final report later this year. The hon. Gentleman is ungenerous in his remarks about Lord Green, who brings enormous experience to the job of Trade Minister. I would just point out that he has replaced Lord Davies, who was appointed by the Labour Government at a time when he was chief executive of Standard Chartered, so it is not as though bringing top bank chiefs into the Government is an innovation.

Air Passenger Duty

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well indeed. Many of those people, particularly the older ones, have contributed to this country. Some of the generation who came to this country after the war helped to rebuild its public sector, and they have worked all their lives. As I have said, the sums of money involved might seem relatively minor to a Treasury official, but they represent a huge imposition on those people who love this country and who are almost invariably British citizens but who also have a great love for the country of their birth. One thing that makes this seem all the more unfair to those people is that air passenger duty is not charged on private aircraft. If this were really an environmental measure, one would expect it to be charged on private aircraft. I will come back to that point later.

It is my contention that air passenger duty is having a negative effect on British business. I have evidence that British business travellers are flying to the continent, then flying to the Caribbean from there, because it is cheaper to do so. Business travellers contribute £70 million to the British economy—money that is slowly being lost due to airport passenger duty charges. Aviation taxation is putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with our European neighbours. This duty will incentivise the strengthening of alternative hubs to the UK both in and outside Europe. In the end, it could well reduce the number and connection of destinations served by UK airports.

Let me move on to tourism. I have been in the House quite a few years and I have lived to see Caribbean countries urged to restructure their economies and to move away from old-fashioned economies, such as those based on bananas and sugar, into financial services, which ended badly. Then they were encouraged to restructure the economy and diversify into tourism. Thus the Caribbean tourism industry now employs, directly and indirectly, more than 1.9 million people—11% of the region’s work force. In important tourist destinations such as Jamaica and Barbados, as much as 25% of the work force are engaged in tourism, while 60% of St Lucia’s gross domestic product derives from tourism. For the Barbados hotel industry, a significant number of holidaymakers are British, and there is no question that the tourism industry in the Caribbean has been damaged by the increases in this duty.

Arrivals from the UK to the Caribbean are now in decline, while those from other markets are increasing. The latest figure from the UK Office for National Statistics shows that visits to the Caribbean by UK residents in 2010 were 16% lower than for the same period in 2009. Visits to Barbados for the same period were 22% lower. For a tourist, as opposed to someone with family links to the region, the Florida Keys is now a cheaper destination. In respect of our air passenger duty arrangements, the whole system is wrong and it is having an effect on British citizens who happen to have links with the Caribbean.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an incredibly important issue. I represent one of the constituencies with the biggest Caribbean diaspora populations in the country. It covers Brixton, for example, and this is a huge issue in my community. I endorse all my hon. Friend’s comments, but would add one more. If this measure were primarily about increasing sustainability and reducing emissions, one would have thought that the proceeds would be used for environmental purposes. My understanding is, however—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the sums raised from this duty go back into the general pot. Will the Minister also answer a specific point that was put to me? How can it be fair to charge a greater level of tax to fly to Jamaica—there are many Jamaican families in my constituency—than to fly the whole way to Hawaii? I would appreciate an answer on that.

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes his point very well. He raised the question of the avowed environmental intent of the duty. I remember that when passenger duties were put forward under a Labour Government, Ministers said that they were there largely in order to help the environment and discourage unnecessary airline travel. This Government have stated that the rises in air passenger duty are partly intended to help achieve environmental goals.

Far be it for me to accuse any Government—whether it be my own or the present Government—of glossing over the reality, but the truth is that if APD were really about achieving environmental goals, it would be calculated differently. For instance, APD is calculated according to only one element of a given flight—the distance travelled, not according to whether the plane is full or half-empty. A whole range of other factors are relevant to environmental impacts, including the type and age of the aircraft, the time it spends in the air and how heavy it is, but the Government choose not to take those factors into account in calculating aviation tax rates.

As I have said, if this is really about the environment, why is no duty charged on private aircraft? The failure to establish a way of calculating the duty that would actually minimise the effect on the environment gives people the impression that, although Ministers may indeed believe in the environmental benefit, it may be no more than a pretext on the part of their officials.

If we want to persuade people to abandon planes for other forms of transport, it is surely logical for APD to bear more heavily on short-haul flights, to which there are genuine alternatives in the form of trains and boats. What, though, is the alternative for the retired nurse living in Hackney who wants to return to Jamaica every couple of years to see her friends and family? There is no such alternative, but we are imposing these big APD rates on her flight, or that of her family.

Having raised the issue under the last Government, I have taken the earliest possible opportunity to raise it again now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend and I went on a number of delegations to Treasury Ministers, and found them—as Ministers always are—well-meaning, kindly and ostensibly understanding of our case. However, they were simply unable to stand up to their officials. We look to this new Treasury Minister for more stoutness of heart and firmness of purpose.

[Mr Umunna]

I think it important for us to send the public—our constituents—the message that this is not a party-political issue. I have obtained a very good House of Commons note on the subject, and I know that the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who is sitting behind the Minister, made a number of excellent points about it in the debate on the Finance Bill in, I think, 2009.

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree that this is not a party-political issue, but one on which Members on both sides of the House feel strongly. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that Ministers should show some fixity of purpose. The present method of calculation is indefensible in terms of both equity and environmental impact, and it could have a big impact on British business by removing the incentive for business-class travellers to make long-haul flights to the Caribbean from London rather than from the continental hub. It is bad for business, it is bad for the Caribbean’s economy—of which tourism is a vital part during an international downturn—and it is bad for British citizens with business interests or family members in the region who simply want to be able to travel at an affordable price.

I have pursued this issue for some time, but I have every hope that a new set of Treasury Ministers will view the arguments afresh, and will undertake to reconsider the way in which air passenger duty is calculated. We appreciate that the Treasury’s tax take must remain the same, and, as I said at the outset, we appreciate that there is a genuine environmental case for seeking to lessen air travel over time. However, we consider the present level of air passenger duty to be unfair, indefensible, and a burden on the Caribbean which this Government should seek to lift.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend points out the impact on local communities but, in a friendly way, I would challenge the point about contradictions. In terms of our tourism industry and our need for links with other countries to drive economic growth, this is very healthy. Our relationship with the Caribbean and the role that aviation plays in helping us to maintain that more broadly is particularly important, so we are not necessarily faced with an either/or choice.

One of the most intractable problems we face, which underpins the whole approach in the Treasury, is the unavoidable challenge of tackling the fiscal deficit. We are faced with that while also making sure that the tax measures in place work effectively and do not have the sort of negative impacts that we do not want or need them to have.

[Mr Umunna]

I should like to follow up the point about equity made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), which I endorse. The key issue is the banding system, which was, admittedly, introduced by the previous Labour Government—I think one of the Minister’s predecessors referred to it as being rather rough and ready—and I would not necessarily endorse the form of APD that they put in place. The Minister says that the coalition Government have undertaken to review the system, but can she tell us when we can expect the results of the review? Obviously, the Budget will be on 23 March. Are the results of the review likely to be announced then or beforehand? That information would be useful to the industry and the many families who want to plan what they will be doing in the next few months.

[Justine Greening]

First, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the Budget statement. What I can say—we have already been clear about this—is that any major change to air passenger duty will be subject to consultation. One thing that we have learned from looking at how this tax and others have been changed in the past is that we need a sensible tax-making policy that involves not just the Treasury thinking about the objectives it wants to achieve, but talking with stakeholders. There is a need to issue a consultation document to which people can respond and then draft legislation to make sure that the final legislation can achieve the aims we have agreed on and that have come out of the consultation.

I cannot give the hon. Member for Streatham any timings for all that, but I can tell him that we want to ensure that any reforms we bring forward will work as intended. He quoted a previous Minister saying that the system was rough and ready. We want to avoid making another change to APD that brings other problems we have not anticipated. Whatever we do in this area, it is impossible to get the perfect system, but we need to understand the pros and cons of any particular approach. We need to understand what the risks are and whether we can mitigate them. He is right to ask about timelines. The fact that we said in the previous Budget that we want to review and reform APD and that we have been working on that and meeting a variety of stakeholders to get their views shows that we want to do this in a thoughtful way rather than just announcing something that would be a surprise to the industry and to people who are trying to plan for their holidays.

Let me finish by saying that I recognise the urgency with which the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington wants this area of tax policy to be changed. However, I think we are right to work out cautiously which path we want to go down. That is why we talked about reviewing the existing APD regime in the June Budget. As I have said, in the past few months I have met a variety of stakeholders, particularly from the Caribbean countries and the Caribbean Council in London. Those discussions have been very helpful and I have had a useful and detailed report from the Caribbean countries about their views on how we could reform APD. Obviously, we will look at that carefully. I am determined to make sure that we continue that constructive dialogue and I hope that in doing so we can ensure that wherever we end up with the reform of APD we will have done a better job of making sure that—

Bank Bonuses

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It is explicitly those sorts of practices that are part of the discussions we are having with the banks. We want to ensure that they treat customers, including small businesses and households, more fairly, to look at the overcharging issue and to make sure that families and business are given good advance warning of the need to renegotiate terms. That is all part of what we seek to renegotiate. As I have said, we have heard absolutely no positive proposals from anyone in opposition. That says a great deal.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has given the impression that the new bonus restrictions have been implemented at his instigation, whereas, of course, they have been introduced to ensure compliance with EU rules, particularly those of the capital requirements directive and the Committee of European Banking Supervisors. The directive was opposed by Conservative MEPs. As for disclosure, Stephen Hester has indicated that the industry is quite relaxed about the implementation of a unilateral disclosure scheme. In the light of his comments, will the Chancellor reconsider the implementation of such a scheme, so we can at least know what is paid in the sector?

[Mr Osborne]

As I said, we are looking for greater disclosure. We are also seeking agreement at European level, because this is an international industry. These are perfectly sensible steps to take, and we have introduced in this country the toughest financial code on bonuses of any financial centre of any size anywhere in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As we have heard, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ assessment of the tax gap was £42 billion, but we are taking measures to address that. It is right that we do so, and we showed our determination this month when we announced a series of measures to reduce tax avoidance.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I would like to get some clarity on the taxation of the banking sector. The Business Secretary made it clear over the weekend that if the financial services sector did not exercise restraint in bonus payouts during the current round of bonuses, which goes on until April next year, the Government would consider imposing further taxes above and beyond existing taxation arrangements and the banking levy. Will the Chancellor, who adopted quite a different tone in New York, please confirm whether the Government are considering imposing extra taxation, over and above the existing arrangements and the banking levy, on the banks if they do not exercise restraint?

[Mr Osborne]

We said in the Budget that we were looking at the case for a financial activities tax, which is one of the two taxes that the International Monetary Fund—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says it has nothing to do with bonuses. I suggest that she goes and considers what a financial activities tax is. The IMF has set out some of the principles behind it, but we have followed the principles behind the other IMF proposal, which is the bank levy. In the past couple of weeks, we have demonstrated that we are prepared to increase the rate of the bank levy to sustain the revenue.

Treasury

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to highlight the need for a more co-ordinated approach to the teaching of financial capability to ensure that no young person leaves school without the benefit of that critical life skill.

Financial capability can be briefly described as the ability to manage one’s own finances and to become an informed consumer of financial services. Some excellent work is being done in schools, and I shall refer to it shortly, but more needs to be done. The delivery of financial education in schools is patchy, as there is no requirement to provide it. My son Samuel will leave his excellent school in a few months’ time without having received a single lesson in financial education, although the term PHSE stands for “personal, health, social and economic education”.

Before I go into more detail, let me emphasise that I am a proponent of prevention rather than cure, and that I recognise the vital effort that goes into counselling people out of debt. However, I believe we have a problem that a co-ordinated approach to financial literacy will do much to alleviate. All Members are aware of the high levels of personal debt and the untold stress that much of it causes. Each day a staggering 372 people are declared bankrupt, and citizens advice bureaux are currently dealing with some 9,400 new debt problems every working day. A recent survey by another highly effective debt advice organisation, Christians Against Poverty, showed that 74% of its clients had visited a GP while suffering from stress and other medical problems caused by debt.

I have had 20 years’ experience of running a law firm, and during that time the biggest single cause of marital discord among those entering my firm’s doors seeking divorce advice has been money differences. Sadly, many couples enter relationships without being capable of addressing financial challenges together. It is partly because I have witnessed those problems for many years, and the huge personal cost that they entail, that I raise this issue today.

The cost to the national budget of dealing with the ramifications of poor financial literacy must be vast, not only because of relationship breakdowns but because of the implications for the health of individuals and families. A recent study by Aviva and a leading psychologist at City university found that those with sensible financial plans were happier overall and had a stronger sense of financial well-being, and that that was the case regardless of salary.

I believe that the big society, represented by both voluntary and commercial organisations and by government locally and nationally, can work together effectively to give young people and their parents the tools to draw up positive and informed financial plans that will help to secure their future happiness. The need for that is pressing.

Let me offer an example of best practice. Two years ago in my constituency Will Spendilow, a former chief IT architect for Barclays bank, started to visit Congleton high school and Eaton Bank school in my constituency on a voluntary basis. He helps GCSE and A-level students to understand the importance of financial planning, using the DebtCred curriculum, one of many that are available. It empowers children to set life goals and choices, helps teenagers to articulate their short-term and long-term financial goals, and helps students to budget by explaining what proportion of a wage is spent on essentials. Young people learn about the implications and the costs of borrowing; they also learn how to read a bank statement, put together a budget, and distinguish between financial products.

Mr Spendilow’s work has been received enthusiastically by schools and recognised by the high sheriff of Cheshire, Diana Barbour, who has congratulated him on his “sterling achievements”. At the end of one of his classes a teacher said to the young people, “That is the best and most valuable PHSE lesson that you have ever had.” However, when I asked Mr Spendilow what provision there would be if he did not teach financial capability, he said that he did not know of any.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising a subject that I consider to be tremendously important. I particularly endorse what she has said about Christians Against Poverty and the citizens advice bureaux, which operate in my constituency. Does she share my huge disappointment that there is no Treasury Minister present to respond—[Interruption.] I was not aware that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) was a Treasury Minister. Is he the Treasury Minister who will respond to the debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Fiona Bruce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

I wish to raise the issue of the funding settlement for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for two reasons. First, it is important to my constituents, many of whom work in the Cumbernauld branch of HMRC, one of the largest tax offices in the country. Secondly, it is important to the nation for our tax to be collected efficiently and effectively.

I have several questions for the Minister about the settlement that HMRC received in the comprehensive spending review. It mandates overall resource savings of 15% and efficiency savings of 25%. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified the precise meaning of those two figures. To what budget does the 25% refer? What proportion of the 15% overall resource saving will be met from efficiencies, and what proportion will be met through a reduction in the scope of HMRC’s activities? How does the Minister define an efficiency saving? And—this is the most important question for my constituents in Cumbernauld—what is the Minister’s most recent estimate of the number of redundancies that he expects at HMRC across the country during the spending review period, and what proportion of them will be compulsory?

Will the Minister confirm that neither the £900 million for combating tax avoidance nor the £100 million for reducing error, both of which were announced in the comprehensive spending review, will be additional money for HMRC? Will he also explain whether the figures refer to annual allocations, or to money redirected to these purposes over the entire spending review period? How does the Minister expect HMRC to achieve such a redirection of resources, in the context of significant cuts to its overall resource budget?

I would like to place HMRC’s funding settlement in a broader context and draw attention to some specific problems faced by my constituents working in the Cumbernauld office.

[Mr Umunna]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the hugely increased bureaucracy that HMRC will have to deal with because of the change to child benefit, which will require HMRC in some sense to monitor the incomes and outgoings of millions of families across the country?

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which speaks to the overall context in which HMRC will be operating.

We know that there is no direct correlation between reduced funding and increased output. The productivity of individual public servants can increase, but overall output can still decline. There comes a point when any organisation can no longer do more with less. If resources are reduced too far and too hastily, it will end up doing less with less, even if productivity increases. Does the Minister accept that it will be extremely difficult to deliver the additional revenue and improved customer service that we need from HMRC in the context of large reductions in overall expenditure?

Many of the savings that the Government talk about will be made through redundancies and restructuring. Staff motivation and industrial relations at HMRC are already poor. These problems have been recognised by HMRC, which was the subject of heavy criticism in the capability review published by the Cabinet Office in 2009. The review found that only 25% of HMRC staff, compared with 61% of senior civil servants, were proud to work for the Department. In the 2009 staff survey, only 11% of all staff and 17% of senior civil servants felt that change is well managed in HMRC.

We know that working in HMRC is often a difficult job. Dealing with people who are recalcitrant in paying their tax is, I suggest—without direct experience of it—often not much fun, yet staff morale is extremely important. I worry that a combination of low staff morale and further funding cuts is likely to lead to further problems for HMRC. Staff in Cumbernauld, for example, are deeply concerned about the restructuring that is taking place among staff in the benefits and credits section, a reform that is taking place two years ahead of the planned move to universal credit.

These staff have been threatened with compulsory relocation to other tax offices in East Kilbride and Livingston, a source of particular concern for staff with child care and caring responsibilities. I hear that there are fewer jobs available in these new offices than there are posts in Cumbernauld. Staff who are not redeployed might be labelled as surplus, with an uncertain future. Staff in payroll and human resources for the whole of HMRC are also based in Cumbernauld. They are extremely concerned about potential redundancies following the introduction of next generation human resources.

Does the Minister expect that these changes will result in redundancies in Cumbernauld, or will the Cumbernauld office perhaps expand its functions and its staffing? More broadly, can he give us an assurance that HMRC will improve the manner in which it manages change in its organisation?

Finally, I would like to ask a broader question about HMRC’s strategic vision. Does the Minister accept that there is a tension between announcing Britain’s business- friendly credentials to the world and cracking down on tax evasion, particularly by companies and wealthy individuals? In particular, what view does he take of the remarks that David Hartnett, Permanent Secretary, made in the Financial Times last August, when he suggested that

“HMRC is packed full of very intelligent people but we are sometimes too black and white about the law”?

Does the Minister believe that it is possible for tax officials to be “too black and white” about the antisocial behaviour of tax evaders? I can assure him that my constituents, and no doubt those of every hon. Member, do not take that view.

A well resourced and properly motivated HMRC is crucial to the important work of Government. I ask the Minister to provide more detail on the implications of HMRC’s funding settlement, and to consider the assumptions underpinning it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I echo those wishes of good will and merriment to the House.

Before I start talking about choice and competition in the banking sector, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Building Societies Association and the pressure group Compass for giving me assistance in preparing for this debate, and to the fantastic staff of the Treasury Committee, who have provided excellent briefings to me and other Members throughout our ongoing inquiry into choice and competition in the sector.

The financial crisis had a major impact on the shape of the banking sector. There has been widespread consolidation, and concerns have been raised that competition in the sector is not working—with, for example, investigations by the Office of Fair Trading into overdraft charges—and that there is now an ever greater lack of choice and diversity in financial services. That is borne out by the latest OFT figures on market concentration. In the personal current account market, the five largest providers in the country have a 73% market share. In the mortgage market, they make up over 75% of gross lending. They have cornered over 90% of the credit card market as well. By way of comparison, in Spain, the US and Germany, the five largest providers have less than 50% of the personal current account market. In all but a couple of cases, the largest providers are banks. There has been just one new start-up retail bank, Metro Bank, since 2008. These figures demonstrate that there is a lack of choice and diversity in the sector, which, of course, also reduces competition.

I believe we can increase choice and competition by growing and expanding the mutual sector. I hope the Government agree with me on that, particularly as a commitment was given in the coalition agreement to

“bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity in financial services…and create a more competitive banking industry”,

in part by promoting mutuals.

But why mutuals, and what can they offer that standard banks cannot? First, mutuals are democratic. Banks are accountable to shareholders who demand a rising share price and a big dividend, whereas mutuals, collectively owned by their customers, have a collective of people who vote on the direction they wish the institution to take.

[Gregg McClymont]

I have been listening closely to my hon. Friend’s comments. Given the Government’s commitment to what they call the big society, does my hon. Friend agree that mutuals seem to be a perfect example of collective self-organisation of the type the Government talk about?

[Mr Umunna]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall expand on that matter a little later. An example of the participation of members of mutuals is displayed when one attends a building society annual general meeting. The participation rates in such AGMs have increased sharply over the years, and some have member panels, which play an enhanced role in the management of the organisation. I am in favour of markets, but properly regulated ones. That means that we need to redemocratise the market so that it serves people, rather than having things the other way round, which is an avenue we have gone down too much over the past couple of decades. Giving life to mutuals is a good way of redemocratising the financial services sector.

Secondly, mutuals add biodiversity to the financial services sector; a thriving mutuals sector adds to the diversity of the financial system. The more diversified the financial system in terms of size, ownership and structure of businesses, the better able it is to withstand the strains produced by normal business cycles and we can also avoid the herd instinct commonly displayed in the market over recent times.

Thirdly, mutuals have a lesser appetite for indulging in risky financial activities and so, on the whole, they weathered the storm well during the global financial crisis. For example, building society mortgage arrears are less than two thirds of those of the market as a whole. Building societies are also, thankfully, legally barred from taking positions in derivatives, foreign currency and commodity markets, which is where other financial organisations have found themselves in deep trouble. Where mutuals have run into difficulty, as the Dunfermline building society did in March 2009, it has been because they have moved away from the traditional mutual business model. So a growth in mutuals will not only reduce exposure to risky financial activities, but bring systemic advantages. It will foster a culture that moves away from the risky, reckless behaviours that we have seen precipitate the crisis, and so we can reduce the chances of that reoccurring.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on an important issue. Does his argument go on to say that the large banks should be broken up into smaller ones, as in the example from the United States?

[Mr Umunna]

I do not wish to pre-empt the inquiry being carried out by the Treasury Committee. I have some sympathy for those views, but I would like to continue to hear the evidence that my Committee is taking on this matter and read some of the submissions to the Independent Commission on Banking before coming to a firm view.

The fourth argument that I make in favour of mutuals is that they have strong local links and roots in local communities. Mutuals are often regionally based and therefore often have a better understanding of those they seek to serve because they understand and are rooted in those communities. Finally, mutuals will undoubtedly help to promote competition. As I have mentioned, building societies do not have to pay dividends to shareholders, so they can use their funds either to pay higher savings rates or provide lower mortgage rates. It is no surprise that they regularly top the “best buy” tables.

[Justin Tomlinson]

As the Nationwide building society’s head office is in Swindon, I fully support the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. To further strengthen them, may I say that the lack of competition will lead to higher costs and charges for customers?

[Mr Umunna]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I do not wish to speak for too long, so I will just conclude by talking a bit about Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. As we all know, Northern Rock was nationalised on 18 February 2008, having been demutualised in 1997. After it demutualised, it had moved away from the traditional mutual business model and famously came unstuck in the summer of 2007. Likewise, Bradford & Bingley was taken into public ownership on 29 September 2008, having demutualised in December 2000. It, too, had run into trouble at the height of the crisis. For all the reasons that I have mentioned, we should remutualise Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley as soon as we can.

In answer to a written question on 3 November, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I am disappointed to see is not present, given that he was here for Treasury questions earlier, said:

“The Government have made it clear that they are not a permanent investor in UK banks and that their intention, over time, is to dispose of all the investments in an orderly way.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 825W.]

So I ask the Minister who is here, what is the Government’s current view on the issues that I have raised? Are the Government open to remutualisation as a way of meeting their promise in the coalition agreement to promote mutuals? If not, why not? How else do they propose to promote mutuals as promised? Has the Treasury carried out a feasibility study of the remutualisation of Northern Rock and of Bradford & Bingley? If it has not, I call on the Government to do so and publish the findings of that study, so that we might have a proper national debate on the issue.

If the Minister is unable to reply to my detailed questions today, will he undertake to ensure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury provides me with details of the same? I cannot emphasise to the House how important I think those issues are, because if we are serious about ensuring that our constituents do not have to pay the price for the global financial crisis that in turn contributed to and caused the recession, we as a collective absolutely need to get a grip on such matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

I raised a number of detailed questions with the Minister, responses to which have not been forthcoming. I heard with interest the views of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the response that the Minister is giving, bearing in mind that he has been called to do this at such short notice. However, I would be grateful if he explained why the Financial Secretary himself is not here, as he was here only a few hours ago. Will he undertake to ensure that I get detailed responses to the issues that I have raised?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. First, this has not happened at short notice—it has always been the plan for me to answer this debate. He had an opportunity earlier at Treasury questions to raise specific issues when the majority of the team were there. I am aware that I have only less than a minute left, which is why I want to move on to the next point. I am sure that he will get a detailed response, particularly about the way in which the banks, which are now largely in the public sector, are sold on or whatever. The Government will no doubt be looking at the best value for the taxpayer as well as the best service to business and individuals. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will write to him, and we will be making further announcements in the House at an appropriate time.

On the withdrawal of cheque facilities, it is true that the number of cheques issued has declined dramatically. More than 11 million cheques were written in 1990, and that figure declined to 3.5 million in 2009. A provisional date of 31 October 2018 has been set for the withdrawal of cheque facilities, with a final decision to be made by 2016. I, too, have received a letter from a constituent, which arrived this morning. It is from Mrs Hunter of Whitby, who tells me that she is over 90 years old and does not possess a computer or a laptop, or even a mobile phone or any credit or debit card, and so will find it very difficult to send money through the post to her family at Christmas or to make payments to charities. Her local post office, which was within walking distance, was closed when the previous Government were in office, so a journey to the Yorkshire building society or the Co-op would require a taxi journey or a bus ride. She is very concerned that elderly people without recourse to cheques will not find it easy to make payments. Similarly, many small businesses find the cheque system very convenient.

The Government believe that suitable alternatives must be in place for all users of cheques before the system can be phased out, and they welcome the new commitments made by the banking industry on 7 December. In those commitments, the industry recognises the importance of having in place proper alternatives to cheques for those who rely on them most, such as the elderly, the housebound, charities and small businesses. The industry has said that a potential alternative to cheque facilities may include a paper system. Of course, if cheques were to be phased out, it would also be the end of the famous phrase, “The cheque is in the post.”

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have a very peaceful and comfortable Christmas, and let us look forward to a productive new year for the coalition Government.

Banking Reform

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) for securing this debate, which is a valuable one to be having in the House. I draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interest, which is a legacy of my spending 18 years in the banking industry. Before Labour Members get a bit too excited by that revelation, as many have unfortunately done in the past, I should say that for the past three or four years I felt that the profession of banker was possibly the worst to have in the eyes of the public, but that was before I became a Member of this illustrious House.

The motion states that we want to

“prevent a recurrence of the financial crash”.

Obviously we are all united on that, but it is important that we examine the causes of the crash, which we could debate for a long time and go round in circles. I am sure that many rational people will disagree on the responsibilities of banks and bankers. I may have misunderstood the motion, but it seems to suggest that banks are entirely responsible for the financial crash. That is wrong and it does not do justice to Members of this House or to our constituents in preventing something like this from happening again.

The financial crash happened because too much money was chasing too few assets—financial assets or real assets such as real estate. There are three principal reasons for that, the first of which was that world financial reserves, particularly in the east, were growing at a substantial rate. Indeed, they continue to do so, as more people in the west consume goods from the east. To give just one illustration, China’s financial reserves in 1990 were $165 billion but today they are $2.65 trillion. Those reserves needed to find a home.

The second reason is that commodity prices have grown substantially, partly as a result of the growth of the east and other emerging markets, and that has led to a substantial increase in sovereign wealth funds, both in the middle east and in other markets. Those funds also needed to find a home, and they created a colossal wall of money when combined with the financial reserves.

The third reason is something that bankers have called the “Greenspan put”. Alan Greenspan became chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987, just before the Wall street crash, and one of the first things he did when he found a problem in the financial markets and a potential crisis brewing was to lower interest rates as quickly and as substantially as he could. That happened again when the US Federal Reserve led the way after the dotcom bubble burst in 1991, again when Russia had problems and there were problems in Asia, and it has just happened again. Bankers have got used to that approach and it results in what the markets call a “put”, whereby they feel they can sell assets if things go wrong. That has encouraged bad behaviour and a moral hazard: the idea among many bankers of “heads we win, tails the taxpayers lose.”

In addressing these issues, we must not forget those key facts about what caused the crisis. However, bankers did play a significant role and there are things about banks that we need to examine. Although there are issues to address in respect of financial derivatives, I would not make that the key priority. The first thing to examine is the idea of retail banks and commercial investment banks acting as one entity, because that seriously needs to be looked at.

I started working in the banking industry in New York in 1992. Under the Glass-Steagall Act, which was in place at the time, the bank I worked for had to have a completely arm’s length relationship with its retail banking division. That made a big difference to the risks the bank took or even contemplated taking. That situation changed in the late 1980s in Britain, when the big bang took place and the implied Glass-Steagall arrangement disappeared, and it formally changed in the United States in 1999 when that Act was removed. It is vital to examine that. The second thing to look at is, as has been mentioned, banking capital itself.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to share his thoughts on whether we should return to a Glass-Steagall model, which I understand the Clinton Administration did away with when in office?

[Sajid Javid]

There are some considerable merits in that model and given what has happened we should consider it seriously. I hope that the Vickers commission does that.

Secondly, we should consider the banks’ capital requirements. It is right that under Basel III capital requirements should be lifted. The core tier 1 capital requirement will be lifted from about 2% for banks to about 7%. Some points are still missed, however. The focus is far too narrowly on the default risk of assets and we have strange incidences even with default risk—for example, under the new proposals industrialised sovereigns are still considered to be risk free. As we speak, Ireland’s 10-year Government bonds are trading at more than 11%, Spain’s 10-year bonds are trading at more than 6% and Germany’s are trading at more than 2.5%, but they are all treated as zero-risk weighted and no risk capital will be set aside. No account is taken of liquidity, either. One of the largest problems for banks over the past three or four years was lack of liquidity, but the capital requirements do not take full account of that.

One of the biggest mistakes that made Britain’s situation far worse than that of other countries was the change in regulation when Tony Blair’s Government first took office. The jobs of people at the Bank of England, who knew what they were doing, were taken over by people at the Financial Services Authority, who did not know what they were doing. I remember an FSA audit where the chief auditor of my credit derivatives book, which had a market value of more than €100 billion, was a 27-year-old with a degree in biology. It is no wonder that problems started to happen. We do not necessarily need more regulation, just smarter regulation.

There are many issues to consider that we could debate for a long time. Banking regulation is one such issue, but we do no service to our constituents if we merely focus narrowly on it when we consider the lessons of the financial crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on initiating this important debate. I welcome the fact that we are conducting it in a reasonably non-partisan way. I have listened with interest to the comments of my fellow Treasury Committee members, and the last three contributors in particular. Although I do not agree with everything that has been said, there is much common ground.

My general approach is that we should not set out to destroy the City. It makes a valuable contribution to our economy, not least to the tax take of the Exchequer. I spent much of my legal career working there and I know that a number of other Members present also worked there for some time. The important thing is that we reform the City so that it is run in the interests of all the British people, not in the interests of a few people in the square mile, as often seems to happen. Above all, let us reform it so that never again do any of our constituents have to pick up the tab for the mess in the sector.

We should be clear. All major political parties and Governments across the world bear responsibility for allowing what happened to develop. Let us face it: the consensus pre-crash was for a light-touch model of regulation. However, we should not forget—this is where I differ from some other Members—that it was ultimately the bankers who were to blame. Now we have to resolve what happened.

I disagree with the motion in that it suggests that nothing much has happened. I am glad to hear that other Members disagree with that. Let us look back to the G20 in April 2009 and recall what was achieved there, following the leadership demonstrated by the former Prime Minister. I remember him being ridiculed as he went around the world trying to galvanise consensus on a set of outcomes, but the summit produced outcomes that have been built upon. Three come to mind. First, the leaders resolved to establish the Financial Stability Board, the successor to the Financial Stability Forum, and as a consequence the world has a standing body of Finance Ministers, regulators and central bankers, which seeks to provide early warnings of financial risks and has a greater mandate to promote financial stability globally.

Secondly, the leaders who attended the summit took concerted action to improve the quality and quantity of capital in the banking system, and I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), one of my Treasury Committee colleagues, because what came out of it—with the FSB and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision working together —helped to produce more stringent capital adequacy requirements and the minimum equity requirement will go up to 7%. Perhaps it is regrettable that that will not happen until 2019, and perhaps it could be sped up, but it has definitely made a difference.

Thirdly, the leaders resolved to endorse and implement new principles on remuneration, and, as a result, in the March Budget the former Government put in place the apparatus within which a remuneration disclosure scheme could be enacted.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is greater transparency on bonuses, the threatened diaspora of bankers will be nothing more than hot air?

[Mr Umunna]

The apparatus would help to introduce greater transparency on bonuses, because if we want to do something about reckless remuneration we need to know about it. I speak to many people in the City, and, although some of course disagree with the measure, many accept that it needs to be introduced. Action was taken, but some measures are still outstanding.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Umunna]

I am going to make progress, because I do not have much time.

I welcome the introduction of the independent banking commission, which the new Government were right to set up. Without pre-empting the commission, I firmly believe that we should separate retail from investment banking. There is some consensus on that, but it is a question of degree.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Umunna]

I am afraid I am going to continue.

Do we go for the Dodd-Frank model, which has just been implemented in the United States, or the Glass-Steagall model, which was in place from the 1930s until recently? Mervyn King has moved a little on the issue. At the Treasury Committee last week, he was very clear that he would not give his view on it until the Vickers commission reports, but Lord Turner doubts that it is possible to separate proprietary trading from commercial banking. That is why I am sympathetic to the Glass-Steagall model, but I am happy to see what the banking commission comes forward with.

I shall conclude by considering some wider issues. I should like two key outcomes from the reforms currently being implemented. First, to pick up on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), we need to return to the notion of our banks as a utility. They are a utility and should be treated as such, because they are absolutely essential to our everyday lives. We have lost sight of their purpose, because we have a allowed a big, shadow banking structure to evolve while 1.75 million adults on lower incomes do not have access to basic banking services. I should like us to introduce a universal banking obligation, so that everybody has access to such services. It is a great shame that the Government have decided to do away with their commitment in the coalition agreement to introduce a people’s bank through the Post Office, because that would have been very good.

Secondly, I agree with the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that we need greater diversity in the sector. It is dominated by a few major players, and there has been only one start-up entrant in the market, Metro bank, since 2008. In particular, I should like serious consideration to be given to breathing life into the mutuals sector. Why do we not seriously consider remutualising Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, as opposed to privatising them, so that we increase the diversity of providers in the sector for our constituents?

There is no magic bullet when it comes to reforming financial regulation. The previous Government made a good start; it is absolutely crucial that the coalition Government build on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me catch your eye in this debate; this is a little different from the last time that I spoke. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is not the size of the dog, but the size of the fight in the dog that decides who wins.

This is an important debate because we need a vibrant, strong and confident banking sector if we are to see the essential growth that all hon. Members desire for our economy. Before we look to the future, it is important that we should address the problems of the past, including the very recent past.

Many Labour Members seem to be keen simply to bash the bankers and blame them for the financial crisis and recession rather than look at the causal and contributory parts played by their own former Treasury Front Benchers, including the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). He has much to answer for, and I wish that he were in the Chamber more often so that he could do so.

[Mr Umunna]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bridgen]

With pleasure.

[Mr Umunna]

In fairness to many hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House, I should say that there has been a recognition that although the crisis was not 100% the fault of the bankers, they bear a huge part of the responsibility. As I said when I spoke, I think that before the crash there was a consensus around the world that tended towards a light-touch regulatory regime. That is something for which everybody, on both sides of the House and in legislatures throughout the western world, has to take responsibility. That has been acknowledged in the Chamber. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that sentiment has been expressed during this debate?

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman makes that point, but the previous Government encouraged and took part in an orgy of credit: in fact, they led it, and invited individuals and corporations to join in, safe in the knowledge that the former Prime Minister said that he had ended boom and bust, which now sounds as ridiculous as King Canute claiming he could turn back the tide. The taxpayer now has the hangover from that 10-year orgy of credit.

Under the former Prime Minister’s watch, the Bank of England deliberately stoked a consumer boom that led to spiralling house price inflation and massive levels of personal debt. This is not just my opinion, but that of the previous Governor of the Bank of England, the late Lord George, who said of that period:

“We knew that we were having to stimulate consumer spending. We knew we had pushed it up to levels which couldn't possibly be sustained into the medium and long term.”

That approach led to 20% house price inflation when the consumer prices index was running at 2%, led to financial institutions such as Northern Rock offering 120% mortgages, and ultimately led to a run on a British bank and the financial crisis of 2007. Opposition Members might blame America, global markets, or even the fact that we are not in the euro, as ridiculous as that sounds, but this misguided belief, and the hubris of the previous Prime Minister in believing that he had ended boom and bust, helped to contribute to the banking collapse. It is fascinating that the shadow Home Secretary—or perhaps I should say the shadow shadow Chancellor—stated that the cause of the deficit was not the previous Government’s borrowing, but rather the collapse of tax revenues. He failed to recognise that tax revenues based on rapid house inflation and excessive consumer credit are totally unsustainable.

The failure of the previous Prime Minister’s regulatory regime also contributed to the problem. It was clear in the early part of the decade that the UK had an unsustainable consumer credit funding gap: the IMF said so, as did the previous Governor of the Bank of England. The power to regulate had been transferred from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury, with an inadequate definition of roles and responsibilities. It was an absolute disaster, as was shown at the height of the Northern Rock crash, when Mervyn King was asked, “Who is in control?” and his answer was, “That depends on how you define ‘in control’.” The answer was that nobody was in control, and no one could see who was in control. One cannot have a third of a problem—one wants all of the problem or none of it. That was part of the difficulty.

So where do we go from here? I am a firm believer in sound money. A sustainable banking system is one where lending policies are closely in sync with the projected economic activity of the people it serves, not driving them.

Autumn Forecast

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I assure my hon. Friend that I will not tire of reminding the Opposition of that. Of course, if they come forward with a new economic policy we can examine it, but at the moment there is not a new economic policy to examine, so there we have it.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has said that he sees private sector growth being driven by business investment and by exports. In its report today, the OBR has revised down its forecast for business investment in four of the years between 2010 and 2015. Of course, we have seen the dramatic uncertainties in the eurozone, which is our main export market. If exports and business investment do not turn out to be what he expects, where does he see private sector growth coming from?

[Mr Osborne]

One of the primary tasks of the OBR is to assess whether we will hit the fiscal mandate. The very fact that the fiscal forecasts are not a matter of controversy in the House today shows what we have done to get the British public finances under control. The OBR assessed specifically the scenario that the hon. Gentleman volunteers and said that the fiscal mandate will be met under those conditions. In fact, rather perversely, that helps the fiscal forecasts because of the tax base being more focused towards consumption.