Economic Growth

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

This is a coalition Government with a coalition Queen’s Speech, which contains things such as the single-tier pension, the Care Bill and the help for small employers, which will make a real difference to people across the country. Our view is that the best route to achieving what I know my hon. Friend wants to achieve is by legislating in this House. As the Prime Minister said in his January speech, we now have draft legislation for an in/out referendum on the EU. We have done it in good time for this Session’s ballot for private Members’ Bills. It is now open to any hon. Members who do well in that ballot to adopt the draft Bill that we published yesterday and take it forward as the basis for legislation. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will do everything we can to make it law.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

A moment or two ago the Chancellor said that if the renegotiation that the Prime Minister has set out on produced fundamental change, he would vote to stay in the EU. What will his position be if the renegotiation does not produce much change? That is what happened the last time this was tried in the 1970s. Not much change is not exactly an unlikely prospect, given the attitude of other European member states so far to the Government’s stance.

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think the Prime Minister will fail in his negotiating effort. I do not think the Conservative party will fail in its negotiating effort with the European Union. Do Members know why I do not think we will fail in that effort? The Prime Minister pulled us out of the eurozone bail-outs when everyone said that was impossible. The Prime Minister delivered a cut in the European budget when everyone said that was unachievable. The Prime Minister vetoed a bad treaty when people said that was unprecedented. I am confident we can achieve that new settlement.

There is another reason why I am confident we can achieve that settlement. I see around the table in Europe—around the ECOFIN table, where I was yesterday— many countries as concerned as we are about the future of jobs and investment on the European continent, people who know that the EU is not working as currently arranged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The central question since the financial crash has been how to secure recovery in tough economic times. When the election took place, economic growth had been restored and unemployment was falling, but since then we have seen precious little growth, and unemployment is rising once again. Dealing with that should have been the central purpose of this Queen’s Speech and this debate.

There are measures in the Queen’s Speech—some worth while—to help small businesses to recruit new employees, which we called for, and to extend apprenticeships, which were significantly expanded during our time in government. However, one is left with the impression that although some of the measures may be worth while, as a whole they are not equal to the depth and durability of our economic problems. In fact, the Government seem to have given up and are waiting desperately for the new Governor of the Bank of England to secure the economic growth that they have so signally failed to secure.

The Queen’s Speech seems to be more about positioning and fear of the UK Independence party than about genuinely dealing with the country’s economic problems. UKIP, however, is a movement against the political establishment as a whole. It is based on a vision of the United Kingdom as it used to be, not as it is or how it will be. I have to say to Government Members that they cannot fight nostalgia with policy or positioning; the only way to answer nostalgia is to offer a better tomorrow, rather than having an argument about a better yesterday.

The Queen’s Speech has been completely overtaken by the argument about Europe. The amendment has attracted more and more signatures, and as it has done so, the Prime Minister’s professed relaxation has become greater and greater—presumably, by 7 o’clock tonight he will be completely asleep. His relaxation is not strength but weakness, and it fools no one. It is not only about the Back Benchers; while he is in the United States arguing for a European-American trade agreement, his own Cabinet Ministers are touring the studios to say that they would vote to come out of the European Union. It all feels very familiar, and it is little wonder that John Major’s former press secretary said this week that

“there are some parallels with the back end of John Major’s premiership.

One of the differences is, that was when the Conservatives had been in power for 17 or 18 years. Now the Conservatives have only been in power in coalition for two or three years.”

No wonder President Obama had to warn the Prime Minister this week that the UK’s influence is greater when we are engaged with and in the European Union. The notion that we can swap membership of the European Union for some other transatlantic embrace is confounded by that warning, which I hope is heard on the Government Benches.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it not about time that we asked the British people—that the people of the United Kingdom made the decision, rather than politicians dictating to them the future relationship with Europe?

[Mr McFadden]

We then come to the draft Bill. There was no talk of that beforehand, no suggestion of it in the Queen’s Speech. It is a panic response to the amendment, a failed attempt to buy off tonight’s rebels. This tells us so much about how the Government operate—short-term tactics, not long-term strategy. However, the tactics fail to buy off the rebels, who are simply emboldened and come back for more. Even this afternoon we have heard people saying, “2017 is not soon enough. We need the referendum now.”

The truth is that whether the Bill is a private Member’s Bill or a Government Bill in this Parliament, no Parliament can bind the next Parliament. The time to put legislation forward to have a referendum is before the Government want the referendum, not four or five years in advance. The tactics will not work in the short term; they will simply increase the Government’s pain. Instead of stopping banging on about Europe, the Tories are back to doing little else. That is because too many people on the Government Benches care more about this than about the country’s economic problems or about being in government.

The centrepiece of the Prime Minister’s strategy is renegotiation. We have been here before, too. Harold Wilson had exactly the same strategy in the 1970s—renegotiate, then hold a referendum. He put the conclusions to the House in March 1975. To those who have not read them, I recommend that they do so. They will find plenty about beef, butter and sugar, but nothing about fundamentally altered terms of membership.

When today’s Prime Minister is asked what he wants from the renegotiation, the only specific he mentions is the working time directive. The working time directive was already renegotiated in the previous Parliament. We dealt with the on-call issue and the preservation of the UK’s opt-out. The important thing about that is that it was done without threatening to leave the European Union. If that is all that the Prime Minister can come up with, no one will believe it. Of course the European Union needs reform. It needs to be more flexible and less rigid and it needs to concentrate more on growth and jobs. The Prime Minister has a far greater chance of achieving those goals if he is not threatening to leave at the same time. This is a broader argument about our vision of the UK. Is it to be engaged or is it to retreat into nostalgia? I know which I prefer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and my many other hon. Friends for their consistently strong arguments about the shortcomings of the Gracious Speech. It is a Queen’s Speech that lacks vision, substance and coherence. It lacks any answers to the big challenges that Britain faces. As such, it is entirely typical of this pitiful excuse for a Government. It is as though they could not be bothered to think through the legislation that is needed to get our economy moving, perhaps because their minds were elsewhere. We know where their minds were. Downing street has been caught in the headlights. It is fixated with internal party management and is frantically trying to hold it all together, when what we really need is a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who can focus relentlessly on the weaknesses in our economy and on the action needed to kick-start growth. They are so distracted, however, that they have lost sight of the things that matter most to the British people.

Youth unemployment still stands at nearly 1 million, and the Work programme is so useless that the number of young people on the dole for more than a year has tripled since it was introduced. At the spending review in 2010, the Chancellor said that there would be at least 6% economic growth by now, but we have seen barely more than 1%. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, yet the Government housing scheme offers a better subsidy for second home buyers than for building new homes. The construction sector is collapsing on this Government’s watch, but only seven projects from the list of 576 in their infrastructure plan are actually completed or operational. That is pathetic.

The Government promised to help 400,000 businesses with a national insurance holiday for new firms, but they have helped barely 5% of them. They are now having to replace that legislation. We are experiencing the slowest economic recovery for more than 100 years, and deficit reduction has ground firmly to a halt. When we hear the Government claim that they have cut the deficit by a third, we must remember that it was the same last year as it was the year before, and that it will be the same again this year. It is no wonder that they have lost the triple A credit ratings that they promised to preserve. It is a simple lesson: if the economy is flatlining, they should not be surprised if the deficit stubbornly remains high.

The Government are either too weak to admit that they have made mistakes or too distracted to see it for themselves. As a result, we are left with a legislative agenda that fails to rise to the challenges facing our country. These Ministers see consumers and businesses that lack confidence and they see weak economic demand, but their Government’s response is to pull back from the role that they should play, pull the rug from beneath the feet of those who are trying to move forward, pull away the safety net from families facing hardship and pull up the drawbridge against the entrepreneurs and investment that our country needs.

Where is the jobs Bill to ensure that all the long-term unemployed are offered a decent job opportunity on at least the minimum wage, with the private sector in partnership with the Government? We could do all that, and cover the costs, if only the Chancellor would stop being so weak towards the banks and instead make them pay their fair share. Where is the finance Bill to reverse the unfair tax cuts for the richest 1% and to help to make work pay with a 10p starting rate of income tax? Where are the measures that my hon. Friends have so eloquently called for to tackle rip-off energy bills, extortionate train fares and rogue landlords? Where is the action, the drive, the activity? Nowhere, because the Government are frozen to the spot.

It says everything about the hollowness of this Government that the Queen’s Speech debate today has been totally dominated by one subject that is not even in it. Where once we had a Conservative Prime Minister who boasted of her convictions, tonight we have a Conservative Cabinet united only by their abstention. As that Prime Minister once said, this is not leadership but “followership”. The truth is that this Queen’s Speech is not a legislative programme of a functioning Government; it is a sticking-plaster programme trying desperately to hold things together while Conservative MPs kick lumps out of the Prime Minister.

A week ago, the Prime Minister did not think that an EU referendum was important enough to put in the Queen’s Speech, but a week later we find that it is the first Bill that the Government have published. If they want a referendum, why are they not supporting the amendment; if they do not want a referendum, why have they drafted their Bill?

The draft Bill that the Government have rushed out—I do not know whether the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor had a hand in the very technical drafting of the one side of A4—had nothing to do with consulting the public; it was all about silencing the Conservative party’s internal divisions. They are not so much a coalition as a contradiction. There are three parties in this Government: the two faces of the Conservative party in league with the Liberal Democrats—perhaps best represented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to whom I wish many happy returns today. Hon. Members will be interested to know that this right hon. Gentleman spent a decade of his life before entering this House making the case for a federal Europe. What a triumph it is for the Government Whips facing a difficult vote on Europe that the final speech in support of the Government’s programme should come from the former chief spokesman for the campaign to join the euro. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sad truth is that this Government are too weak, too divided and too distracted; they are fiddling on about Europe while the economy burns.

[Mr McFadden]

On the subject of the Government’s tactics over the rushed, panicked publication of this referendum Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate shows that the tactic has already failed because during the debate the people who wanted this were already asking the Government to go further by having the referendum this side of the general election rather than after the next one?

[Chris Leslie]

The Prime Minister said yesterday, “No more concessions; that is the line in the sand; this is as far as they will go.” It is amazing to think, though, that he has to keep feeding the beast. The problem is that Conservative Members are carrying on a bit like the strange man in the corner of that country pub endlessly moaning about the dreadful threat of outsiders and incomers. I have to tell them that if they spend all their time trying to be like UKIP, they should not be surprised when people vote for the real thing.

We are left with a Government increasingly out of touch with the real problems facing real families across Britain. Tonight, it is those families that are paying the price: higher taxes because growth is stagnant and lower living standards because wages are falling. Every year that goes by while our economy stands still and while our Government are divided and distracted, our international competitors get further and further ahead.

The Queen’s Speech lists 15 Bills that look as though full time has been called for this Parliament, not just the end of the first half of it. The Government’s legislative agenda, supposedly to drive Britain forward, did not even make it from Downing Street to the Cabinet Office before running out of support. We should look at their child care strategy, stumbling in more directions than a toddler learning to walk. They are not going to convince the public that it is sensible to have one nursery worker looking after six two-year-olds on their own if they cannot even persuade their own Deputy Prime Minister. Surely, the Prime Minister of all people must know how difficult it is single-handedly to watch over a group of immature and disobedient trouble-makers, constantly throwing tantrums. They cannot even manage the basics.

Just at the moment when we need a strong voice for the United Kingdom arguing for the reforms and change of direction we need across the European economy, we get a Prime Minister saying one thing, an Education Secretary who is not here and a Defence Secretary who is not here saying another, while his Back Benchers are revolting and the Deputy Prime Minister is wielding his veto. Our country and our partners deserve better than that. Britain needs to be leading in Europe, not leaving Europe, and the Prime Minister should be brave enough to say it. He should stand up to those who are undermining his authority. On the very day when he was extolling the virtues of a new EU trade deal with the United States, his own Ministers implied that they would rather turn their backs on that £10 billion advantage.

The amendment has blown the last semblance of unity in the coalition to smithereens. The Prime Minister could not even tell his own troops to vote against it, so we have ended up with the absurd spectacle of Ministers being told to abstain while the Prime Minister is supposedly “chillaxed” about the rest of them supporting it. The Prime Minister should not be relaxed when those on his own side express regrets about his own Government and his own Queen’s Speech; he should be embarrassed by it. He should not “chill” at the thought; he should be chilled by it. He should have led from the start and asserted his authority, but he is too weak, and his party is too divided and distracted to be brought into line.

The fact is that this in/out, in/out, hokey-cokey referendum policy sends all the wrong signals. The Prime Minister’s party is left leaderless, and the country is left rudderless. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker: there is a real-world price to be paid for this weakness, and it will be paid in jobs, with inward investors left mystified about whether or not they would have access to a single market with 500 million customers if they came here.

When will the Conservatives realise that the top priority for this country must be the strength of our economy, not their obsession with Europe? The Prime Minister once said:

“Instead of talking about the things that most people care about… we were banging on about Europe.”

They are back to banging on, and on, and on—not about jobs, not about growth, not about recovery, but about Europe, yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are too distracted to see what needs to be done, too divided to agree on how to do it, and too weak to take the action that the country needs. Weak, divided, distracted: we see a Government who are slowly imploding under the weight of their own contradictions.

Britain, at home and in Europe, needs a Government who are strong enough to make the tough decisions for our country’s future, united in seeing those decisions through, and focused on securing growth and recovery. That is the only genuine way of improving our national finances. Britain needs that one nation Government and we need it now, but sadly, with this Queen’s Speech, with this Government and with this Prime Minister, Britain must wait.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Lady knows—her colleague the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) might also like to comment on this—the commission has been hard at work considering various representations, including those from Which? and the British Bankers Association, on whether there should be a code of conduct. I am sure that the House would expect us to wait for the commission’s recommendations and then to respond to them.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it was politically unwise for the Treasury to brief that it hoped the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards would endorse its politically motivated attacks on the previous Chancellor’s bail-out of the Royal Bank of Scotland? Does he further agree that the uppermost criterion for the reprivatisation of RBS must be the interests of the taxpayers who bailed it out, rather than any political or electoral timetable?

[Greg Clark]

It goes without saying that the interests of the taxpayer must be paramount, and I am not aware of any of the briefing that the right hon. Gentleman refers to.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman will discover that through our debates in Committee he will have plenty of opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. When we have the commission’s recommendations, if we think that they need more than a day on Report then I will make the case for that. Whatever happens, I will ensure that this House has the opportunity fully to consider these matters.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I am afraid that I want to press the Minister further on the same point. He said that the Government would ensure that there was full consideration in this House of further recommendations from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, yet the timetabling motion that he will move later says:

“Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall…be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 April”.

That is before the date of the parliamentary commission’s final report. How meaningful will be his commitment to full consideration of those proposals, given that he is rushing the Bill through Committee before the commission, which I remind the House was set up by the Chancellor, has even issued its final report?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman will find that he is satisfied with the scrutiny that is available. It is a question of chickens and eggs. We have not yet had the recommendations of the commission, on which he serves. When it makes its recommendations, if we think that they require more time then we will certainly make sure that there is plenty of opportunity for the House to scrutinise these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I have taken to heart the need to allow into the market smaller players, whether they be building societies or banks. I will say something about that shortly which I hope will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr McFadden]

I suggest to the Minister that he has just ducked the British dilemma that he set out at the beginning of his speech by saying on the one hand that we have a huge financial services sector, but on the other hand that we are going to go at the speed of the slowest ship out of Basel on the capital and leverage rules. Is not the proper response to having a huge financial services sector relative to our economy to ensure that we have adequate rules to protect the UK taxpayer, rather than always going for the lowest common denominator internationally on such standards?

[Greg Clark]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman would concede that what Vickers recommended will advantage us and protect the British taxpayer in a number of respects, including through ring-fencing and higher capital requirements. We are already doing those things. He will know that Vickers did not recommend an early increase in the leverage ratio. I have been candid with the House that we would like to see one. However, in line with what Vickers advised and given the discussions that are taking place in other jurisdictions, we think that it is right to have the consideration in 2017, with a view to introducing the higher leverage ratio later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sorry that the Chancellor has not been able to join us for the debate. The Bill may be called the Clark-Javid Act, but it will certainly not be called the Osborne Act given his disappearance.

As the Financial Secretary said, the global financial crisis has cast a long shadow. Our recovery to pre-crisis levels of economic output has still not been achieved because of the drag anchor of the Chancellor’s austerity programme. The high-risk, high-reward culture of worldwide banking systems required a taxpayer bail-out; profits were retained privately in the good times, but losses fell on the shoulders of the public when things turned bad. We cannot allow a repetition of those risks to the taxpayer in future, which is why banks must be reformed in the UK, across the EU and across the globe.

The Bill has its roots in the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh summit when world leaders decided to insist on tougher loss-absorbing capital rules for banks. Britain’s financial services sector is larger than most, and with the greatest financial centre on the planet in the City of London we must take additional steps to guard against the risk of future collapse. The Financial Services Act 2012 sought to address regulatory shortcomings, but the jury is out on whether the Bank of England will be inherently stronger than the Financial Services Authority.

The advent of the FSA in 1998 was a step forward from the dark ages of self-regulation, but that regulatory framework was not capable of policing the extreme risks and dangers of a rapidly expanding global banking sector, interdependent from country to country. We agree with the need to introduce prudential regulation and greater systemic oversight, but that theory has not yet been translated into reality. Although there were regulatory shortcomings, we should be in no doubt that primary culpability rests with the banks, which should not be allowed to get away without reform.

The Vickers Banking Commission concluded that structural firewalls are needed to supplement capital safety buffers, which is undoubtedly true. With this Bill some of the legislative underpinnings for those firewalls will gradually take shape, and to the extent that it enables the ring-fencing of retail from investment banking, we welcome that. However, the Bill merely provides the scaffolding for the basic building blocks that will come at a later date, largely in secondary legislation by Treasury order. It focuses only on structural scaffolding, not on wholesale reform of the standard and culture of the banking sector—something we hope that the cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards will help focus on to help fortify the Bill in due course. As the Banking Commission points out, it is perhaps not the beginning of the end of banking reform, but the end of the beginning.

The timing and process for consideration of the Bill, and the programme motion before the House, propose a ridiculously compressed Commons scrutiny process and for the Bill to be out of Committee by 18 April. As I said earlier, that shows total disregard for the parliamentary process and flies in the face of the Banking Commission’s careful recommendations. The Bill is already a cursory framework because it is largely a string of enabling powers for the Treasury to arrange for ring-fencing through secondary legislation. The Government established the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards to ensure that recommendations could be added to the Bill. So far, however, we have had only part 1 of that commission’s points about structural questions.

The Government now expect the Commons to consider this partial Bill in Committee without having the final report on standards and culture from the parliamentary commission. That is treating the Commons as though this is merely a tick-box exercise and a part of the process that does not matter, and there is no need to scrutinise the final proposals. Dropping in late additions to the Bill on Report or—more likely—during consideration in the Lords, is not an appropriate way to legislate. As I said, the parliamentary commission recommended a three-month gap between publication of the Bill and commencement of the Committee stage, but the Government rejected that idea.

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend said, I think, that the timetable was inappropriate. Does he agree that it may also be unwise, given that if the amendments are moved in the other place, the first three speakers in that debate are likely to be the former Conservative Chancellor, the former Chair of the Treasury Committee, and the Archbishop of Canterbury?

[Chris Leslie]

Recently I have been looking at a number of Thatcher quotes, given that the Prime Minister mentioned TINA—there is no alternative—which hon. Members will remember. Another famous quote from Lady Thatcher was, “Always leave yourself a way out”, and I wonder whether the emollient approach taken by the Financial Secretary is because he realises that when there is inadequate scrutiny in this House, the questions go to the other place and it is likely that the Government will have to back down on some of these matters. Perhaps he is listening to the advice of Baroness Thatcher on some of these issues.

It is not adequate to expect, as the Minister suggested, that we will be able to scrutinise the Bill sufficiently on the Floor of the House on Report. As he knows, with the knives that come into effect during considerations on Report, one often finds that amendments are put without a full debate. It is a different process from the Commons Committee stage. The programme motion should reflect the right of the Commons to scrutinise the full version of the Bill, and that is not the version we have before the House today. If the Government were serious about this issue, the Chancellor would be here. Clearly, our downgraded Chancellor has downgraded the banking reform Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I would like to begin where the Minister began, with this issue of the British dilemma: the relationship between the size of our financial services industry and the rest of our economy. It is right that it is a very big UK industry. It is a big contributor to taxes, as the Minister said, and it is a major employer. It has a cluster of expertise around it, including law, accountancy, and consultancy services, which are also important contributors to our exports.

There are two views that we can take because of that importance. One is the view, sometimes canvassed, that because of its size we cannot touch it, or only in a minimal way, because if we harm this huge industry it will go to Singapore or the United States; it will go somewhere. But there is another view, which I would like to advance in this debate, that the very size of the industry in relation to the UK economy places a responsibility on us to ensure that that size does not damage the interests of UK taxpayers or the real economy.

We have seen through the crisis that occurred several years ago precisely how damaging failure in that industry can be to the wider economy. I do not have to remind the House about the results of that failure in terms of the bail-outs, the deficits and the decisions about tax and spending, the consequences of which our constituents are living with today and will be living with for many years to come. The approach that we should take to this British dilemma is to say, yes, the industry is valuable and important, but because of its very size we believe in the need for particular measures in the UK to insulate us from wider damage. Simply to stress the size of the industry and to ask for it to be left alone whenever someone comes up with a regulatory proposal is, to put it in the language that bankers would understand, a one-way trade, and a one-way trade is not good enough. We need a two-way trade that protects the interests of taxpayers too.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at the time of the bail-outs of the banks, which are commonly regarded as a great success. As part and parcel of looking back on the past while also preparing for the future, does he recognise that elements of those bail-outs were not quite the success that they were portrayed as at the time? To get out of the large positions that we still hold in Lloyds Banking Group and RBS with any profit, let alone the large profit that perhaps we should have been negotiating at the outset, seems a long time away. Does he recognise that mistakes were made over the bail-outs which will be with us for many years to come?

[Mr McFadden]

One of the reasons for having this debate is that when the crisis hit in 2007-08 there was no proper resolution mechanism or bail-out regime in place to ensure that bondholders, rather than taxpayers, were on the hook for bank failure. We are having this debate precisely because we did not have the tools in place in legislation to deal with the global crisis when it unfolded. As I have said, what we need is a two-way trade.

[Mark Field]

I do not buy into the argument that the tools were not in place. In reality, it was not that many of the businesses were too big to fail, but that they were too interconnected, which I accept put us in a very different position from that in any previous bail-out. In relation to any insolvency or restructuring, there were and are protocols in place, and they should have been adopted to ensure the best value for the taxpayer in the long term. That did not happen in 2008-09.

[Mr McFadden]

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the tools were in place, I must refer him to the Chancellor, who is constantly saying that his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), had no alternative when the crisis hit in 2008.

Let me turn to the Bill and some of the issues before us today. There is broad agreement on the need for some kind of structural separation between retail and investment banking. It is important to understand that the point of ring-fencing, as recommended by the Vickers commission, is not to ensure that no retail bank can ever fail—that is impossible—but to make failure, if it does occur, more manageable by insulating the risks and focusing the resolution effort on the essential services that the Government judge it in the public interest to protect: people’s savings, the payments service and simple consumer and SME lending. It would be going too far, and it would be far too rash, to say that that solves the “too big to fail” problem. However, ring-fencing ought to reduce the risks of future failure to taxpayers and the wider economy.

As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) has said, the parliamentary commission, on which I serve, made two proposals in relation to structural separation. The first was the reserve power to separate individual banks should they try to burrow under, climb over, erode or get through—or any other metaphor that has been used—the fence, and the Government have accepted that recommendation. The second was to have a wider power to enforce separation on the sector as a whole. That second power would be needed precisely because problems in the sector do not come in the neatly wrapped form of one institution. As we saw in 2007-08, contagion is a fact of life in banking; the weakness of one can quickly affect others. Cultural problems in one part of the sector also spread quickly. It is precisely because problems in the industry are often widespread that there is a strong case for taking a reserve power to enforce separation on the sector as a whole, in the event that the sector tries to get around the intention of the Bill.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am not yet convinced about the reserve power and have many questions. The three banks that actually collapsed were Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley and Dunfermline, all narrow mortgage banks. How would the ability to separate investment from retail banking have helped in those circumstances?

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman neglects to mention RBS, a universal bank, which needed major intervention to bail it out.

The Minister has said that he does not want wider separation because the Bank of England does not want it. It is true that the Bank of England has expressed some reservations about the power if it were to be wielded by the regulator. I took the opportunity to ask the Governor about it last week when he appeared before the commission. He replied that

“a provision so important that it affects the entire sector is one that both de facto and de jure will and should be taken by Parliament.”

When I explained to him that it had never been the commission’s recommendation that this be a policy decision taken purely by the regulator, and that all along we had been clear that it was a decision for Government, he said:

“As long as the decision is taken by Government, we would have no objection to that.”

I hope that we will no longer hear Ministers saying that they are rejecting this power because the Bank of England is opposed to it. This should of course be a decision taken by Government. As for the Chancellor’s point that it would be “undemocratic”, what is undemocratic about holding a proper review into legislation passed by this House as the Banking Commission suggests, or about taking a reserve power the exercise of which would involve the parliamentary process of debate and approval? The truth is that it would not be undemocratic at all.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I am afraid that I want to make some more progress.

This is not, as the Minister argued, about introducing two policies at once; it is about introducing a policy and making sure that it is adhered to. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said in this House a few weeks ago, the banks have nothing to fear if they adhere to the spirit and letter of the Bill. It need not introduce uncertainty, as some have argued; in fact, it ought to provide certainty that we are serious about the ring fence.

On capital and leverage, it is absolutely true that in the run-up to the crisis banks were over-leveraged, and that is because they held too little capital against the risks that they had. The Vickers commission was very clear about that. It recommended a future leverage ratio of 25:1, which is still quite high in historical terms, while the Government are recommending 33:1 because that is the internationally accepted Basel outcome. Without going into any more detail, I just say to the Minister that this goes back to the one-way trade to which I referred. It is a really important question running through all these reforms. If, every time we rub up against an issue, we say that we cannot damage the industry because it is so big here in the UK and we therefore have to stick to the lowest common denominator of international reforms, we will not be doing our duty to the UK economy or to UK taxpayers. If we have learned anything from the crisis of 2007 and 2008, it ought to be that there is a case for taking particular measures here in the UK precisely because of the size of the sector in relation to our wider economy. That is the basis on which we should judge the correct degree of leverage for the banks that operate in the UK.

Then there is the question of resolution and bail-in: in other words, what happens when a bank fails, and who is on the hook for that failure? In 2008, it was the taxpayers, not the bondholders, because a resolution mechanism was not in place in law that could allow for normal insolvency procedures were those to whom the banks owed money to take the risk. A very important part of the reforms is to change that situation. Bail-in is signed up to by the Government, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I am very curious as to why the Government are pursuing this through the European resolution and recovery directive. I would have thought, particularly after last week, that the Government might be somewhat nervous about pursuing a major financial services reform through a European directive. I return again to the one-way trade argument. Surely, because of the importance of this industry here in the UK, we should legislate to make sure that bondholders take a future risk and not UK taxpayers, and we should not leave it to the very uncertain process of a European directive negotiation. That might work out fine; there might be spontaneous agreement among the 27 member states. However, I am sure that the Minister agrees that that there is a very real possibility—this is not uncommon—that that would not be the case. I ask him to think again on the bail-in regime and to ensure that a proper UK decision is taken rather than leaving it all to a European directive. I would have thought that Government Members would support such a suggestion.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate the point about time. The parliamentary commission, which was set up by the Chancellor, has spent six months taking in—the chairman, the hon. Member for Chichester has done more totting up than me—60-odd oral evidence sessions and much written evidence. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say that he will take the Bill out of Committee by the end of April, before we issue our final report. The Opposition supported the establishment of the parliamentary commission after the House had voted on the issue. We expect its recommendations to be properly considered by the Government, not swept out of the way by the timetable. I hope that the Minister will think again, because the structural issues under discussion are not the only issues. Important changes still need to be made to banking culture, standards and corporate governance, so that this very important industry contributes positively to the UK and does not put the economy and taxpayers at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

That was the point I was trying to make, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who said that although that is true, it is not enough to say, “We’re a big employer; leave us alone.” The influence of the financial services in the City is greater than that, and that will not do anymore.

Wage inequality in financial institutions skews influence to insiders at the top. This is a classic insider-outsider problem, and we in Parliament must work out how to scrutinise more what goes on in the City. I believe that the Royal Bank of Scotland’s final report makes great play of how it is finally a living wage employer. Well, good for RBS, but it is perhaps a little too late.

On the bonus culture, the Government have said that there could be a perverse incentive in controlling bonuses and that people might be paid more if their bonuses are reduced. That is true if—and only if—they think the following two things: that it might not be better to have more fixed costs and less turbulence, and that we might want to think about the impact of those highly variable costs on incentives; and, secondly, that the overall remuneration of bankers is just fine and the current inequality in the financial services sector is okay. Well, it is not okay. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who represents the City, mentioned the many people all over the country who work in financial services, but when I make the point about inequality in the financial services sector, it is those very people, and the money in their pockets, who I am thinking of.

[Mr McFadden]

On pay and reward, does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfair that the vast majority of financial services workers, who are in ordinary branches of banks and so on and paid normal, average salaries, get tarred with the brush of excess and of salaries way out of kilter with what normal people earn, when in fact that is taking place at the very top of banking and not in the local branch?

[Alison McGovern]

I could not agree more. It is also not okay that people in regular branches were pressured to sell all kinds of products, which we know happened.

I was very much taken by the contribution made by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell). Unfortunately, he has left his place. I was going comment on the deregulation of building societies and the big bang back in 1986, but as he has already covered that very well, I will not do so except to say this. On reading Lord Lawson’s account of the impact of the 1980s boom on the real economy, I think he is clear that he thinks he made a mistake. We should listen to the lessons of history. We should also congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), Lord McFall and Baroness Kramer on establishing the New City Network, which is trying to find ways to answer some of the questions I have raised.

To turn to my second point, which is more specific to the Bill, we need to ask ourselves what kind of economy we want. My constituents, unsurprisingly, are interested in having a job to go to, and in having enough money in their pockets to feed their family and have a roof over their heads. They want a Government who do not tell them that they will cut debt to solve the problem, only to see debt rising. Notwithstanding that, the Bill ought to help finance to underpin a growing economy. Will the ringfence help us do that? That is determined by what we think banks are for. We should say that banks are not just like any other industry: cavalier risks are totally unacceptable, and that is why the ringfence matters. We need to assure ourselves that we have done enough to provide for business continuity in a real, productive economy.

I am not sure that the ringfence is necessarily enough to do that, however. What about the examples of straightforward bad lending? What about investment banks with no retail operation, such as Lehman’s in the US? What about retail banks that went under in this country? How does the ringfence de-risk in those cases? Then there are the comments from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) about the industry marking its own exam. That gives rise to the need for reserve powers, which other hon. Members have described well.

We need to be clear that some in financial services argue against separation at all—they worry about the cost to the bank. I am afraid that that sounds a little too much like special pleading. Saying that this will hurt lending to the real economy because it passes costs on just sounds like tit-for-tat: “Block our preferred business model and we will punish small and medium-sized enterprises, small business and the average small lender.” Why do they have to do that? I am not sure that one necessarily leads to the other—it is about their business model. How does the Bill help with protection from banking failure in other European countries?

We have heard other hon. Members talk about competition, so I will not dwell on that for too long, but the Government must be clear and Ministers must say exactly what kind of competition they want. Any economics textbook will tell us that three firms are enough for competition, but I think we all think that common sense dictates otherwise. How many new entrants to the market are sufficient? More importantly, what kind of competition do we want?

There is nothing in the Bill about ownership, but perhaps there should be. What are the Government doing to open up banking to more mutuals? Could we look back over our history at what happened to building societies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned, and see whether there is room for change in that sphere? I have raised before the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and pre-funded deposit insurance. If we compare the EU’s position on making sure that banks commit properly to the UK’s position, I wonder whether Ministers have got that one right.

In conclusion, this is a shell of a Bill and we can do much better. To paraphrase John Donne, financial services is not an industry entire of itself; it is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. We therefore need a greater commitment from the industry that it is prepared to change, and from the Government that they are prepared to legislate to help it do so. The impact of the financial crash on people in my constituency was huge, be that from the threat of losing their house, or losing their job. That is too important for this subject to remain a matter of technical, niche interest. The Government must be much stronger and listen to the voices calling for change.

Economic Policy

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I would say that the credit rating agencies are important, but they are one test—[Interruption.] It is the shadow Chancellor who wants to say that the rating agency’s decision is not important, but we should still have a debate on it in Parliament. It is a completely contradictory position. It is important, but it is just one test of the Government’s economic credibility in the markets, and that is tested by the gilt yields, by the value of sterling, by the rates of the stock market and all sorts of other things, and as I say, today we have not seen excessive volatility. I say to the shadow Chancellor and to my hon. Friend and the Treasury Committee that we have to convince the world that we can pay our way in the world, and that is what this Government are going to do.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

If the Chancellor did not want this to be the test, he should not have set it up to be the test. Does he agree with himself that for the UK to lose its triple A rating would be a humiliation?

Banking Reform

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Of course. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the other members of the commission. It might not be known just how many hours of the day they are working on it, but they are doing a service to the country in doing so. We accept his recommendation. This is a high-level Bill and we have said that we will introduce amendments to reflect the recommendations. When we do that, we will invite him to consider whether they appropriately address his recommendations.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the change of heart announced by the Chancellor today. It is in contrast to the dismissive noises that came from the Government when our report was published just before Christmas. I am sure that that change of heart had nothing to do with the vision of amendments in the other place being supported by one of the Chancellor’s predecessors, Lord Lawson, a former Cabinet permanent secretary and the new Archbishop of Canterbury.

I would like to ask the Minister why today’s response was silent on the commission’s recommendation for a general reserve power for the sector as a whole. I must correct him: if adopted, such a decision should not be left to the Bank of England, but be taken by the Chancellor.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question, to whom I extend my thanks for serving with distinction on the commission.

I said that the Bank of England did not want a general reserve power, but the right hon. Gentleman made the perfectly valid point that it might not necessarily be a choice for the Bank. It seems to me, however, that the power to break up any individual bank is a very strong one, and quite rightly, as the commission recommended, it would make the ring fence more impenetrable. Nevertheless, to provide for a reserve power in this Bill that would change the whole system would, in effect, be a different policy. I understand the reasons for wanting to do that, as many distinguished members of the commission do, but changing the whole policy would deserve the scrutiny of a Bill of its own—any future Government would be free to introduce such a Bill. To have it as a rider to a Bill designed to implement the Vickers report would be the wrong step forward.

Finally, as for accepting amendments, there are several Members of this House who have served on Bill Committees with me in the past. My demeanour, now and throughout the passage of the Bill, will be to listen to good and sensible suggestions from wherever they come—not to treat this as an exercise in partisanship, but to try to find consensus on the best system for financial regulation in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Richard Graham. Not here.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Chancellor on his U-turn on capital allowances for manufacturing industry? When did he realise that his previous stance of dismissing them as complex reliefs was wrong and at total variance with the Government’s stated aim of supporting manufacturing? When did his conversion to supporting these allowances take place, as long called for by Labour Members and the Engineering Employers Federation?

[Mr Osborne]

The first thing I would say is that we reduced the small companies rate—which would have gone up to 22% under the plans put in place by the last Labour Budget—to 20%. We have now introduced a £250,000 annual investment allowance for small and medium-sized businesses for the next two years. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party had been calling for this. It had 13 years to introduce a £250,000 annual investment allowance. There were all those Budgets that the shadow Chancellor wrote and he did not put it in place.

Bank of England

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There were some excellent female candidates but—I will be absolutely candid with my hon. Friend—it was rather disappointing that there were not more female candidates of the highest quality. Both I and my predecessor faced that issue with appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, and I would like to work constructively with people who have ideas on how we can encourage women in the economics profession to aim for a career in public service, the MPC, or central banking. We must do more to encourage that because, as I said, both I and my predecessor found that we did not have as wide a range of female candidates for the MPC as we would have liked.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

There are good reasons for the Chancellor to appoint the Governor of the Bank of Canada. As he said, Canada weathered the crisis well and was the first G7 country to restore employment and GDP to pre-crisis levels—a stark contrast with our own position. Will the Chancellor discuss the Canadian experience with the new Governor in order to get lending moving? He will know that initiatives such as Merlin have not worked, and unless we get lending flowing to the real economy we will not get the recovery that we all want.

[Mr Osborne]

Canada had the advantage of going into the crisis with properly managed public finances, and it avoided the large bank bail-outs that we had in this country—RBS was the biggest bank bail-out in the world—because its banks were better regulated. Hopefully, Mr Carney will bring some of that experience.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about lending in the economy. The Bank of England has created the funding for lending scheme, and we see the impact of that in new products that banks such as Santander and Lloyds have launched. He is right to say that that is one of the things we have to be on in terms of economic management. The de-leveraging in our economy is still one of the real headwinds to recovery.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points and I only wish the Prime Minister would talk to his own legal adviser. As far as I can see, the Attorney-General has entirely torpedoed the inquiry, which we were told yesterday would conclude by Christmas. If he is saying that the inquiry can take longer in order to deal with the issue of criminal charges, what does that make of the Prime Minister’s argument that the only reason for doing it this way was to do it faster? It is utterly incoherent. I am not saying in any way that the Attorney-General is being incoherent—it is just the Chancellor and the Prime Minister who have completely lost their grip on this whole process.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legal advice that we seem to have heard on the hoof just now casts a whole new light on the debate? The Government’s argument all week for a Joint Committee of both Houses has been that it could proceed with its work quickly, whereas we have just heard an argument suggesting that precisely the same objections as the Attorney-General made to our proposals could be made to the Government’s proposals.

[Ed Balls]

It is no surprise that the Chancellor has gone completely white as he sits on the Front Bench. Let us be honest: he did not consult the Culture Secretary on a tax on churches; he did not consult the Transport Secretary on a U-turn on fuel; and he did not consult the Law Officers on the inquiry—

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It would be entirely up to the Committee to call whomever it would want to call, and it might well want to speak to John Vickers, who has enormous expertise in this area.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I think that the Chancellor has done his announcement a disservice by setting it up as a continuation of his obsession with placing every act of wrongdoing by every banker at the door of the previous Government. Does he not accept that what the public want is something that gets to the heart of the rotten culture exposed by the FSA report last week, rather than the partisan way in which he set out today’s announcement?

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want to get to the heart of the cultural problems, but when the shadow Chancellor responds to a statement and blames it all on the party that was in opposition at the time, it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out who was in government. That is a perfectly reasonable response in the cut and thrust of this House, but I completely agree with the sentiment he expresses, which is that we should try to proceed on a cross-party basis. I hope that his Front Benchers will think about supporting the joint inquiry—they will of course be able to choose its Labour members—because I think that that it is the correct way forward to give us answers for next year.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I think the answer to my hon. Friends question is: when he left the industry.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor concentrated heavily on regulation in his statement. He was less keen to tell the House that throughout the period in question, he and his colleagues were calling for less regulation, not more. Does not the responsibility for wrongdoing really lie with those who did wrong—in this case, the traders in Barclays, and very possibly other banks, who participated in a rotten culture, far removed from the job that we want banks to do, which is supporting savers, home owners and businesses? If it really does come down to regulation, why will the Chancellor not accede to the request made by Opposition Front Benchers and now the Chair of the Treasury Committee to include LIBOR in the Bill that is going through Parliament?

[Mr Osborne]

First of all, when in opposition, we actually objected to the creation of the FSA, the tripartite system of regulation, and taking the Bank of England out of supervision. We voted against that. By the way, I remember—I was the shadow Chancellor at the time—the previous Prime Minister endlessly berating us for voting against that particular piece of legislation.

When it comes to responsibility, of course those involved should be held responsible. I have made that absolutely clear, and that is what the FSA is doing. However, I point out that the Government at the time should be held responsible for the culture that they presided over. As I say, we will take the steps necessary to prevent this happening again, and we are looking at the regulation of the LIBOR market to get it right.