Budget Resolutions
Debate between Lord Tyrie and Chris Leslie
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I do not think that there is a great deal of concord in the House about that speech, but I think that there is some agreement across the House about a number of things that the Chancellor said. In fact, I think that there has been a quiet consensus in this place for steady deficit reduction ever since Alistair Darling’s Budget of 2010, and I am delighted that the Chancellor is persisting with that reduction.
Before picking up on a few of the measures, particularly those that affect small businesses, I want to make one point about overall fiscal policy. The Chancellor does not have much room for manoeuvre. He is pretty heavily boxed in, and I see him nodding in agreement. On the spending side, three quarters of public spending is covered by manifesto pledges, so every round of savings has to fall on a progressively smaller area, which makes it painful for it to absorb. On the tax side, he is just as constrained. In fact, he is even more constrained, because he has inherited the tax lock—the statutory prohibition on any reduction or increase in a number of taxes—and a commitment to reduce corporation tax to 15%. That puts over 80% of revenue beyond his reach should he need to raise more money later. Of course, there is also the fuel duty freeze—I think it is a freeze—that was announced in the autumn statement. All those tax and spending pledges are the fallout of an electoral bidding war, but dealing with that is a matter for another day.
I want to pick up on a few detailed measures that we just heard about, particularly on those, as I said, that affect small businesses, because I am particularly concerned about them. I was delighted to hear some good news, but first it is worth going through the list of things that small businesses are having to deal with at the moment: the doubling of insurance premium tax that was announced last year; automatic enrolment for pensions; the extra cost of the living wage; the infrastructure levy; the revaluation of rates—I will come on to the proposals that have just been announced in a moment—and the “Making tax digital” plan. In addition, there are the proposals for class 4 national insurance contributions.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is providing a good analysis so far. On the increase in national insurance contributions for the self-employed, does he think that the Chancellor needs to explain why he is breaking a 2015 general election manifesto pledge?
Mr Tyrie
The Chancellor set out his reasons quite carefully. He thinks that there is a strong argument for matching what people get out of NICs on the receipt side to the contribution side. I will look carefully at the hon. Gentleman’s point about the specific manifesto pledge, about which the Chancellor and I will no doubt have a further discussion when he comes before the Treasury Committee.
The Chancellor announced some quite important changes to “Making tax digital”, and we need to be clear about the problem that he seeks to address. Until today’s statement, several million people, mostly small traders, would have been required by law from 2018 to fill in their tax returns electronically for the first time. Some of those traders will not even have a smartphone, let alone a computer. The plan’s effect would have been to impose a massive, unfair burden on small businesses and some of the smallest traders, so it is good news that the Chancellor made a concession today, one which appears to be aligned with at least one of the suggestions made in a Treasury Committee report on this subject. The most important thing that the Chancellor is doing is keeping the starting threshold for another year at the VAT threshold of £83,000. That is the good news, but the not so good news is that the relief is only for a year.
May I ask the Chancellor to consider phasing in the lower threshold over a run of three or four years? He has suggested a lower threshold of £10,000, which seems extremely low—he looks puzzled, but he will find that that is what HMRC has been talking about. Dropping the VAT threshold dramatically from £83,000, or whatever it becomes, in one year strikes me as unreasonable. Of course I understand why the Chancellor is doing that—he needs the money—and I am sure that HMRC has told him that there is a huge amount of money waiting to be collected. He is nodding in agreement with that, too.
I think that I am right to say that HMRC previously suggested that £2 billion of uncollected tax is available, but I doubt that figure, and so does the Treasury Committee. If the Chancellor is brutal about introducing the measure, he might not got very much money. Some businesses will go into the grey economy, and some will cease trading altogether, so the pot of gold might not be there at all.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Debate between Lord Tyrie and Chris Leslie(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
Those issues were covered pretty substantially by the commission in its first and second reports, and this was the conclusion it reached. Nobody wanted to go for full separation if it could be avoided; we wanted to ensure that ring-fencing arrangements could be upheld and made to work. There are some arguments in favour of that universal model, and therefore it was felt preferable to have such a power in reserve, but in the Bill. It is no wonder that the banking sector breathed a heavy sigh of relief today, when it saw the Government’s response on this and other issues. The markets judged that the banking sector got off lightly, and that there was nothing tough or difficult for the sector. That is why we have seen the market reaction today. The notion of business as usual seems to be back on the table.
I want the House to recognise that this is not an amendment that Labour has come up with in a partisan way. We are simply tabling an amendment that was drafted by the commission after days, weeks and months of deliberation and careful cross-party thought by Members of both Houses, but thrown back in the face of the commission by the Government today. It is important to have this on the statute book. A back-stop power will incentivise the banks to comply with ring-fencing. If the Government are correct in believing that ring-fencing will be adequate, the amendment will do no harm to the policy. It will sit dormant on the statute book. But if the Government are wrong, and this backstop power is not in place when it is needed, serious consequences could arise. It is nonsense for the Minister to ignore this risk, especially as the other place will want to come back to this issue. He may be forced to concede if we get into parliamentary ping-pong at some point.
I do not want to take up too much more time because many other hon. Members have spent a lot more time on this issue than I have, but I wish that the Government would listen to them and to the commission.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I shall say a little more than I usually say in the House because these arrangements are quite central to the work of the banking commission and give me an opportunity— my first—to explain some of the reasoning behind that work. The two key amendments that I have tabled would empower the regulator to split up a banking group if there were serious failures in the culture and standards of the ring-fenced body or another member of its group. In deciding whether these serious failures have occurred, the regulator would be required to take account of the recommendations contained in the reports of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which I chaired.
We produced five reports about a vitally important industry, one that has become embroiled in very serious scandals that have cost the consumer, taxpayers and the whole country a fortune. The parliamentary commission was the first of its kind for a century. The last, exactly a hundred years ago, collapsed in a heap of partisan acrimony.
We have produced five reports in under a year, all of which were agreed unanimously. We also put in an unprecedented amount of detailed work, taking evidence for 171 hours in no fewer than 76 evidence sessions, in addition to deliberating in private for a further 74 hours. I would like to thank my colleagues on the commission in both Houses for their huge contributions, injections of energy and endurance. I would also like to express my thanks for the equally impressive commitment of the commission staff and specialist advisers, led by Colin Lee and his two deputies, Adam Mellows-Facer and Lydia Menzies. Only the very limited time available prevents me from listing many more of the staff who put in so much work. I would also particularly like to thank the Front Benchers of all parties, who have offered a great deal of support.
The task now is to get the report implemented, primarily by regulators and banks, and, where necessary, supported by statute. The Government have today responded to the commission’s most recent report—our fifth. I have had a chance to flip through the response, but there has been no time to digest it fully—it is about 80 pages—and, of course, no time for anyone to table amendments as a result. In view of the extent to which it looks as if the Bill has been changed, I would be grateful if the usual channels could consider recommitting this Bill to Committee. Failing that, at the very least—as the my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said—an extra day should be provided for consideration of what will inevitably be a mass of Lords amendments. Bearing in mind the struggle that we had to get the half-day tomorrow, I hope that the Government will show more flexibility about this extra time.
Having said that, I warmly welcome the supportive tone of the pre-briefing given to the Financial Times about the publication that we have had today. Still, I would rather have heard about it here first. I am also very pleased that so many of the proposals and also the argumentation for them appear to have been accepted in full. But I am not fully reassured. The Government appeared to have accepted the commission’s proposal on a specific power to force the separation of an individual bank, but here we are, at the eleventh hour, trying to prevent the proposal from being severely weakened by the Government. In fact, as I will explain, the Government’s amendments would render the specific power of electrification virtually useless.
Some of the commission’s important proposals have not been accepted at all, for example on leverage, on which we support the recommendations of the Vickers commission, and on reform of the Bank of England’s antiquated governance structure, on which the commission supports the recommendations of the Treasury Committee.
Other ideas that the Government have rejected include the need to wind up United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd and the regulatory reforms to provide statutory autonomy for the regulatory decisions committee. I find that especially regrettable. The Government have also rejected the proposal to remove the FCA’s strategic objective. No one can see much purpose to this except the Government. It can be used to trump the operational objectives of the FCA, including that of competition, and can thus serve only to weaken those operational objectives. On all those issues, I hope that their lordships will repair some of the damage that we have been left with no time to attend to here.
Financial Services Bill
Debate between Lord Tyrie and Chris Leslie(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
It is a great pleasure to welcome the new Minister to these rather long-winded proceedings. I believe we started on this Bill back in February, but he should not worry, as this is shortly to be followed by the banking reform Bill and possibly even a banking standards Bill—to be determined—so we will probably have plenty more opportunities to chew over these issues then. It is a little preposterous to have a knife coming down at 7 o’clock, by which time we have to put the Question on 150 or so of these Lords amendments. That gives us about 25 seconds per amendment [Interruption.] I will get on with it; I lost about a dozen amendments just then.
That is why we have tabled several amendments to those Lords amendments—you will be impressed with that, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I wish briefly to explain why we have done so. The first Lords amendment that we are seeking to amend is Lords amendment 3, which, as all hon. Members here know, deals with the creation of an oversight committee within the Bank of England as a sort of subset of the court of directors, where it is to have a reviewing and, supposedly, a scrutinising role. There is a problem: the oversight committee has a series of responsibilities, not one of which is set out, in overseeing what the Bank of England does. The committee has a set of responsibilities to monitor, to review procedures and to conduct performance reviews, but all of that is retrospective—it looks backwards, not forwards. May I gently suggest to the Minister that it might be more appropriate if he were to call this a “hindsight committee” rather than an oversight committee, because as things stand I do not think there is a sense in which this is a proper check and balance within the governance of the Bank of England?
Why does that matter? It matters because the Government are giving phenomenal new powers to the Bank of England within our economy as an overarching financial regulator. The Minister says that the PRA is independent and will report to Parliament, but let us be honest: this is a creature of the Bank of England and the Bank will control very much what happens in the regulatory framework. Although we welcome the concession that was made to create an oversight committee, people have misgivings—we will probably hear about some of them, perhaps from members of the Treasury Committee, in a moment—that there is still a very hierarchical and centralised set of governance structures in the Bank of England.
We therefore need to make sure that this crucial verb “oversee” is included in the oversight committee’s remit. That would help to shift the balance of power between non-executives and executives in the Bank of England framework just that bit more. These are important lessons of governance, certainly from the private sector. While we are moving towards that executive and non-executive balance, it is important that we recognise that the Bank of England is being dragged into the 21st century. If we are taking the opportunity to do that in legislation, making that particular change would be very welcome.
The other amendment we wish to make to Lords amendment 3 relates to crisis management. As I said, the Bill gives massive new powers to the Bank of England, but in a crisis there will be very little time to figure out and design standing orders, or to work out arrangements for who will meet whom and for how decisions can involve the right people. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, how during the global financial crisis crucial decisions affecting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and whether people could access the cash machines were made in the space of hours over weekends. In hindsight, it would have been nice to have had a carefully planned set of arrangements, and this Bill needs to learn the lessons from that. We are concerned that the crisis management arrangements are still thin and inadequate. We have suggested that if there is going to be an oversight committee in the Bank of England, the Bill needs to set out explicitly that it is to have a duty to ensure the adequacy and effectiveness of arrangements with the Treasury for crisis management.
There is no role for the new financial conduct authority in the drafting of the arrangements. Apparently it does have a veto, but it is not part of the drafting of that memorandum of understanding. The Government are still resisting proposals to ensure that deputy governors and the chief executive of the FCA can consult directly with the Treasury in circumstances where there might be differences of opinion. Given the import and the size of the FCA, the PRA and the FPC within the Bank, it is important that the deputy governors have an ability and a right to talk to the Treasury, so that everything is not hidden and suppressed within one view of the Governor of the Bank of the England.
There is a very bizarre set of provisions excluding the ability of the memorandum of understanding to make provision about the relationship between the Bank of England and the PRA, which goes to prove that the PRA is very much a creature of the Bank. It also suggests that the Governor will have powers to suppress the voice of the PRA in a crisis. Shockingly, there is no parliamentary approval process for that MOU; no statutory instrument arrangement has been made, as I understand it. The crucial paragraph of the MOU that deals with what happens in the white heat of an emergency simply says, “Oh well, there will be ad hoc or standing committees just to sort these things out.”
That is not good enough. The whole of best practice in preparedness and in emergency and contingency planning would suggest that now is the time for Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Bank of England to sit down and calmly and methodically work through what would happen in those circumstances. There should be some draft standing orders to pre-empt those scenarios.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will recall, of course, that the poorly drafted MOU that lay behind the tripartite agreement certainly played a role in the lack of understanding of how to handle the crisis. Does that not point all the more towards a need to think things through very carefully now? That MOU was scrutinised in Parliament; I was in Committee at that time and most of the points made were largely ignored. Surely now, while we have the time, we should think through what is required in such an MOU and take the opportunity to consider that in Parliament.
Chris Leslie
I entirely agree with the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, who is very knowledgeable and has some strong views on these questions. It is a pity that when we flick through the luminous list of Lords amendments, we find a gaping hole on those crisis management arrangements, where none was accepted by the Government. Some clauses in the Bill deal with that set of scenarios, and it is noticeable that such provision is not included there. That is in part why we have sought to amend Lords amendment 3, as one of the few areas where we can make an amendment is in respect of the role and duties of the oversight committee. I accept that that is only half of the scenario, as we also want Her Majesty’s Treasury to have a process for reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of its arrangements with the Bank of England, but we do not have the opportunity today to propose such an amendment.
If we are to have an oversight committee, it should be able to play a role in ensuring that the crisis management arrangements are up to scratch and that there is joined-up thinking between these variously important branches of governance to ensure that someone at the Bank of England is tasked with thinking these things through very carefully.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that there was a little argy-bargy between the Treasury and the Bank of England. As I understand it, the Bank initially said, “Loan-to-value ratios on mortgages, and loan-to-income ratios, are an awfully big decision. There is a lot of politics in that. We are not that keen. Push that back to the Treasury.” I think the Treasury has been saying, “No, Bank of England, this is a decision for you to take.” These are inherently political issues and our constituents would rightly ask whom to hold to account for such big decisions that affect their daily lives: whether or not someone can get a mortgage, what is happening in the housing market, and so on. That is why we still have some reservations about the governance structures and the lack of accountability on policy making. That is why we are asking for an assessment of the impact on economic growth whenever these levers are pulled and whenever these decisions are taken. I accept that there are careful balances to be struck. The FPC of course has to have an eye to stability, but it also needs to recognise, as the Chancellor has said, that we do not want the risk-aversion of the graveyard so that there is no economic activity. That is why we have suggested this particular change.
I am conscious of the time and I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak. Those are the main points that I have to make about our particular arrangements and it would useful if we could hear the views of others.
Mr Tyrie
The Bill came out of the other place only last Wednesday night and it was heavily amended there. It is the most complicated, and one of the most important, pieces of financial legislation for decades.
Much of what we are considering today amends provisions in the Bill, which themselves amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Bank of England Act. The Bill is incomprehensible without constant referral to FSMA. I would go further and say that it is incomprehensible in parts even after considerable referral to FSMA. We now have a piece of legislation that passeth all man’s understanding, like God’s will. FSMA itself was arguably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament. I was on the Bill Committee and it was certainly pretty testing.
We are now legislating in a huge rush to get this on the statute book by the end of the year in order to meet an entirely arbitrary deadline. The deadline has been rendered all the more absurd by the fact that we will be back here next year anyway amending it as part of the banking Bill, which is required to give effect to the Vickers commission’s recommendations, parts of which have to be done by amending FSMA and cannot be done in any other way. I am not making some recondite point about parliamentary procedure; I am making a point about how to make the Bill effective. It is a point that is being made to me right now by senior regulators, who would very much prefer that we just take a little bit more time to get the legislation right.
This group of amendments deals largely with Bank of England governance. Everyone is agreed that Bank of England governance is in a huge mess. That is why last April the Treasury Committee took the highly unusual step of tabling a new clause in an effort to try to sort it out. I am particularly grateful to colleagues from four parties on the Committee who all co-operated to enable that amendment to go down with unanimous support. I am also particularly grateful to my deputy Chairman, who is sitting on the Opposition Benches, who assisted with the tabling of that clause. It was needed because the Bank has ramshackle governance arrangements that reflect their 17th century origins, as the name “court” demonstrates. As has already been pointed out, better governance would improve its accountability to Parliament. But much more important in some respects, it would also improve the Bank of England’s authority to act and to speak to the rest of the country as it takes tough decisions, such as those that have just been referred to. This is a point that is not lost on very senior people in the Bank of England right now, on the Monetary Policy Committee, the Financial Policy Committee, and also a number of deputy governors.
The Treasury Committee clause would not have solved all that, but it would have gone some way to bringing the Bank into line with good practice on corporate governance generally. It would have placed a duty on the court to conduct retrospective reviews of Bank performance and to publish the results, and it would have required the court to publish its minutes. I withdrew the amendment in the Commons only when the Government gave undertakings to make those changes in the Lords. I will come back to that.
In May, the Treasury Committee took another highly unusual step of reporting on the Financial Services Bill, after we had looked at it in the Commons, in order to assist the other place with its examination. Most of the conclusions that we came to in that report were raised as amendments in the Lords. The Government responded to some of them and that is what we are debating now. The Government’s Lords amendment 3 sets up, as we have heard, an oversight sub-committee of the court’s non-executives. That would give the court the power to commission retrospective reviews of the Bank’s performance —that is a step forward—to be carried out either externally or internally. The Government have also inserted an amendment to require the publication of court records of its meetings. While these amendments improve the Bill, they fall well short of what we were hoping for, and what in our view is still required, for several reasons.
First, the amendments place the power of review in the hands of a sub-committee of the court, rather than the court itself. This will further confuse the lines of accountability, not least to Parliament and to the Treasury Committee. These accountability lines are now very complex. I urge the Minister to try drawing them on the back of an envelope. I wager that he will have quite a task on his hands. Senior regulators agree that they will not do as they stand, and they have been telling us that publicly and privately. They want an improvement. They want the legitimacy for their decisions that comes with effective parliamentary scrutiny. Senior people in the Bank of England have seen how the Monetary Policy Committee has been strengthened and bolstered as a result of effective scrutiny by the Treasury Committee.
Financial Services Bill
Debate between Lord Tyrie and Chris Leslie(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tyrie
I am grateful for that support from my Committee colleague. Competition is now one of the operational objectives, but the punch of the FCA’s three operational objectives has been diluted by the fact that an overarching strategic objective has been placed above them, and it could be used to trump the operational objectives and enable the FCA to avoid a primary duty to take account of competition. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
The PRA veto on the FCA’s work as a whole is another issue that the Committee has raised from time to time, but I must admit that it is not covered by this group of amendments. I shall therefore move on swiftly before I am ruled out of order.
It is now common ground that the proposed governance and accountability of the Bank and the FCA are defective and need to be strengthened. The Committee is determined that they should be strengthened. We regret that they are not already in much better shape, and there is a great deal of work for the other place to do to the legislation. As a Committee, however, we showed by our decision on the need to obtain a full explanation for RBS’s failure that we would not hesitate to take new steps in order to get information that we think should be in the public domain. We took the unprecedented step in that case of sending specialist advisers into the FSA to conduct a full investigation. It should be made clear now that we will not hesitate to do the same with respect to the Bank of England if this legislation remains defective. Sending in specialist advisers was a somewhat cumbersome route to getting to the facts of the RBS issue, and it would be far preferable to improve the Bill so that such action by the Committee would no longer be necessary.
The bottom line for improving Bank accountability, to its own board and to Parliament, should be judged by two criteria. First, does the proposal hold out the prospect of improving the performance of the institution—that is, the quality of public policy? Secondly, does it help secure public consent for the decisions that that body takes? The latter is particularly important for an institution as powerful and as remote, in many respects, as the Bank of England. The Committee believes that new clause 1 would meet both those criteria and I commend it to the House.
Chris Leslie
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—or is he right honourable? If he is not, he should be. I thank him for his eloquent and powerful advocacy of new clause 1. The Treasury Committee has done sterling work in trying to cajole and persuade the very reluctant Bank of England to move from the 18th century to the 19th century. If we could speed things up a little through his new clause, that would certainly be welcome. The hon. Gentleman is not exactly asking for the moon on a stick; he is simply asking for the publication to a reasonable degree of the minutes of the court of the Bank of England—shock, horror—and for proper internal scrutiny in the Bank and a review of how it has performed. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct that it is appalling that the Bank of England has never conducted a review of its role in the 2008-09 crisis. Every other branch of government, including the FSA, has done similarly and I would have thought that such a review would be a pretty basic prerequisite for moving on, especially if we are moving to a new era when the Bank of England will be incredibly powerful thanks to the great news powers that the Government wish to bestow on it.
The Bank of England is an old institution. It started life in 1694 with just 17 clerks and a couple of gatekeepers, and it has subsequently been modernised by a number of Acts of Parliament. It is time, however, for it to become less of an honorific institution. The court should be made up of individuals who really take seriously the responsibility to scrutinise the performance of the executive of the bank, and the hon. Member for Chichester made his points perfectly well. As he says, it is like getting blood out of a stone. Some sort of oversight committee might, as the Minister said in Committee, be able to conduct retrospective reviews. The hon. Member for Chichester is entirely correct that it is ridiculous for only a record of the minutes to be published.
I will support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, if it comes to it, but I suppose we should wait to hear what the Minister has to say. I shall not dwell on the new clause, though, as the group includes many other amendments which address a range of issues on the governance of the Bank of England and the new regulatory structures, and we have a very short space of time in which to debate it. I have, I think, 11 amendments in the group. I will not dwell on them all; I will focus on the key ones.
Chris Leslie
I did indeed consider the downside of having parliamentary scrutiny that might in some way impact adversely in an emergency scenario. We have not sought to amend the provision that would allow the Treasury to bring forward those orders in an emergency situation. It could do that. We could have retrospective scrutiny of that order once it had come into place. These are for ordinary, normal times scenarios. The amendment may be imperfect. I would have liked a proper way to deal with the issues, but there has been significant resistance along the way for such measures.
Chris Leslie
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the very least that we should have. I simply counsel the House that many hon. Members are already under significant pressure because of the European rules and regulations that seem to come from an unaccountable place. It is not entirely unaccountable, but it can sometimes feel that way to our constituents. If we end up with a situation where we do not put in place at this stage the right parliamentary scrutiny arrangements, we are potentially opening up another front where a powerful institution, unelected and seemingly very distant from our constituents concerns, could have a major impact on their day to day lives, and we would be sitting here twiddling our thumbs unable to do anything about it, never mind even to debate it. We have had debates in the past on the retail distribution review and other examples where there has been massive frustration in the House about the lack of an accountability thread between parliamentarians and regulators. That would be magnified many times over if we did not put in place the right arrangements.