National Insurance Contributions Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I offer my wholehearted support to the Government for this excellent Bill.
On part 1 and the increases in rates, a point that has not been made but that is worthy of comment concerns the timing. Opposition Members had considered the increase when we were at a flaky stage in the recovery of the economy and when there was concern that there might be a double-dip recession. To move the timing from June of this year to April of next year is to be commended and it is absolutely the right and responsible thing to do.
My speech will focus principally on part 2 and the so-called “holiday” for new businesses, a provision that I wholeheartedly support. It is absolutely right that new businesses should be given a helping hand, particularly now. I am fortunate that my constituency of Newton Abbot is in Devon and therefore in the south-west, which means that my new businesses will benefit from these new measures. The Government estimate the benefit across the country at £940 million. That is well worth having and I am delighted to see Opposition Members supporting it. The cost in the grand scheme of things is relatively small and the administration costs of £12 million can be set against the overall administrative costs for this tax, which stand at £1.54 billion. The estimated benefit for individual businesses will be £2,000 per business with a rough administration cost of £166. That strikes me as very good value for money.
I want to take up a point that has been made by a number of Members on both sides of the House. In my view and, clearly, that of others, micro-businesses desperately need help. In the south-west, 91% of businesses employ only five people—small businesses that are a large part of the business community. In my part of the world, issues will arise because of the changes to the public sector, so helping micro-businesses will be very important because it is more likely than not that, because of their sheer number, they will take on those who are made redundant and the NEETs, as we call them—those not in employment, education or training—who clearly need a helping hand.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the hon. Lady realised that the proposed holiday does not apply to existing small businesses?
Anne Marie Morris
I thank the shadow Minister, but that is precisely my point. I would like to ask the Treasury and the Treasury team to extend the provision to those businesses in the fullness of time.
In particular, we should clarify what we mean by a micro-business. The European Union defines it as a business with 10 employees and a turnover of less than £2 million. For my money, that is a very big business. In my part of the world, micro-businesses are really very small. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who is no longer with us, suggested that we might think about a small business of two employees that was considering adding one extra employee. The point was that it is a big step for a sole trader or husband and wife team to take on that extra member of staff, and it is there that we need the help.
I suggest that the Treasury urgently considers extending the provision to micro-businesses, not in this Bill but in a future Budget. I cannot see why micro-businesses should not be covered across the country rather than in regions. My plea is that micro-businesses, which are different to small businesses, should be properly represented and that we should consider what we in this Parliament mean by a micro-business rather than necessarily taking the European definition. We should also consider what help we can give them.
As for the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), it is not just about tax assistance, but about regulatory assistance. Some very small businesses are drowning in legislation, much of which is simply not appropriate for them.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) referred to the regrettable consequences of Government policy in terms of unemployment. I believe that, in large part, the entire Bill is regrettable because it introduces rises in national insurance for employers and employees, on businesses, at a time when we look to them for growth, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out. But the reason for that is the policies pursued by the previous Government. Because of the hour, I do not intend to rehearse those this evening, save to point out that we have ended up in a situation where the interest alone on the money that we owe is £43 billion a year—more than we spend on education and defence. That is a national disgrace.
I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget of 22 June, particularly the balance that he struck between seeking reductions in expenditure and accepting that we have to raise certain taxes. He weighted it far more towards the former than the latter, which has to be the right policy. The hon. Member for Brent North is right: the Office for Budget Responsibility itself has said that 500,000 jobs will be shed as a consequence of the fiscal consolidation in the public sector, and PricewaterhouseCoopers has suggested that perhaps another half a million private sector jobs will go as a consequence of that. We need to create jobs in the private sector.
According to the Treasury, in the past six months 300,000 jobs have been created in the private sector, so the capacity is there. It was as inevitable as it was regrettable that national insurance would go up. Labour first started talking about increases in national insurance as far back as the latter part of 2008. Of the three major taxation streams going into the Treasury, national insurance is the second most significant. In fact, in 2009-10 £150 billion was raised from income tax, £96 billion from national insurance and £70 billion from VAT. National insurance is efficient to collect, and in 2011-12 we will raise £9 billion as a consequence of the increases. In my opinion and that of many economists, the rise was totally unavoidable.
I wholly welcome one aspect of the Bill—well, not so much the Bill but the secondary legislation that will be enacted later—and that is the increase in the threshold for employers’ national insurance to £21 per week above indexation. I welcome that because it will take some of the pressure off our employers.
National insurance, however, is not a good tax; as we know, it punishes those who employ people rather than taxing the earnings from straightforward investment, which does not employ people. I urge the Government’s Front Benchers to make sure that, when the recovery gathers pace and we start to get the deficit down, national insurance for employers and employees should be right at the top of the list of taxes that we seek to reduce.
I welcome the national insurance holiday, about which much has been said in this debate, and particularly its targeting of new businesses. It should reach about 400,000 new businesses and about 800,000 new employees. I say that as somebody who set up his own small business, starting from scratch 20-odd years ago, and built a company both here and in the United States. One of the most important and fragile moments of a company’s growth is that very starting point; that is when a company is most vulnerable. The help will be hugely welcome.
To my horror, I have found myself being slightly persuaded by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), as he started to open up the discussion about whether the holiday should apply across the entire country or whether, as I think he was suggesting, it might be applied in a different way, to pick up areas in the south-east, Greater London or the eastern region that might value the help more than other parts of the country. I would like to think that Government Front Benchers might think about that aspect a little further, although I suspect that when we start to try to cherry-pick small parts of the country, we will end up with a highly complex and potentially very expensive scheme. However, I would like to think that we might consider the matter in Committee.
I also welcome the fact that this is retrospective legislation that applies to companies set up since the emergency Budget in June, and that it is not prescriptive in the sense of requiring a certain type of employment in order for companies to qualify. There was a scheme in the 1990s to get the long-term unemployed back into work that was not nearly as successful as it might have been had it not been so prescriptive.
I am pleased that the Government, in recognising the importance of business, also set out in the Budget reductions in corporation tax in steps from 28% down to 24% over the period of the comprehensive spending review, with the small business rate falling to 20%. That will give us one of the lowest levels of corporation tax in the G20, and the fifth lowest in the G7.
I have some concerns about the national insurance holiday. We must ensure that we avoid so-called recycling whereby, for example, companies set themselves up as apparently a new business although they have been operating before, or come into the market as a new business and then close down and rebrand themselves. I note that clause 5 deals with that issue. My plea is that we do not make the whole operation unduly onerous and complicated for businesses that wish to take advantage of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) spoke in particular about the importance of keeping complexity down. The tax code in this country now runs to 11,000 pages. We have enough complexity—we do not need more.
The Bill also deals with EU regional funding constraints. Under articles 107 and 108 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU, companies are not permitted to receive more than €200,000 in state aid over a three-year period, given the regionality of the way the scheme works. Clause 8 seeks to handle that. Again, it is imperative that whatever information HMRC requires from those companies is kept to the minimum so that the system is not bogged down in red tape.
Chris Leslie
Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to look at the regulatory impact assessment describing the steps necessary to implement the NI holiday, which is estimated on the Treasury’s own figures to cost £22 million? A lot of companies will have to use manual processes instead of the software that they had used to pay their national insurance, and it will require 240 extra staff at HMRC to administer the scheme.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman adds to my point. Indeed, I believe that the cost to HMRC will be £12 million, and the cost imposed on business is estimated at £75 million. I accept that that is a large amount of money in the context of a scheme that is effectively injecting £940 million. It is therefore most important that we keep complexity and red tape to an absolute minimum.
It is important to ensure that this incentive is well advertised, given that it is permissive in allowing companies to apply for it but is not necessarily automatically granted. The HMRC material refers to advertising it on Business Link websites, and so on. If we are to get up to 400,000 businesses involved—1,000 are involved at the moment—we will have to advertise this nationally with a push to ensure that it is taken up. In particular, we need to ensure that we lower the proportion of so-called dead-weight businesses that are taking it up—in other words, those that would have employed additional people even in the absence of the scheme. It is really important that we give this a wholehearted push.
I welcome the national insurance holiday provisions in the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) that it is important to consider other aspects such as encouraging lending and getting the Bank of England issuing credit condition surveys in which it talks about the banks lending again. We also need to cut back on red tape. This is a big opportunity to get back to a culture that is positive about new business. I should like us to have the kind of culture that we had in the 1980s, when we were open for business and companies were being set up. That is when I went out there and set up my business and created wealth and employment for people. That is the aspect of the Bill that I wholeheartedly welcome.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) on his comments. In a nutshell, he has summed up many of the problems and inconsistencies in the Bill. It seems that it has something of a split personality, which has been caused by the Government trying to face in two different directions simultaneously. At the election, many people thought that the Conservatives were promising to reverse entirely the national insurance rise. We consistently heard from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on that issue. Unfortunately, the public did not see the small print that existed at the time.
The Government are merely chipping away at those national insurance changes, and only for employers. That may not actually be a broken promise, but they have rowed back from the impression that they gave to the public. They let everyone think that they were against the change to national insurance, but they never actually intended to reverse it. It is fascinating to see them attempt to cover up that particular shortcoming with the partial increase in the employer national insurance threshold coupled with what most hon. Members, including most Government Members, have described as a complex and insubstantial national insurance tweak that applies to some entrepreneurs in some parts of the country, welcome though it will be to many of them. Political acrobatics have resulted in a contorted Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) argued when highlighting the incoherence of the Bill.
It is true that the previous Labour Administration were prepared to take tough decisions on tax and national insurance, because the banking bail-out required us to raise funds to compensate. The hallmark of political parties is the choices that they make on taxation and expenditure. This Government have chosen to cut severely investment in public services and to raise VAT to 20%. A Labour Government would have chosen a steadier and more sustainable approach to deficit reduction, but national insurance changes would have been part of that.
We chose the national insurance route rather than the VAT route for very good reasons. Slightly contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), the national insurance changes were not going to be made in June; they were always going to come in from next April, by which time we had hoped that the recovery would be well under way. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have chosen to go for the VAT increase. That will hit slightly earlier, albeit by only a few months, but the economy will feel it like a punch in the stomach. Their VAT jobs tax could have a greater impact on employment, which it will hit significantly, than the national insurance changes. The CIPD, to which many hon. Members referred, predicts that around 250,000 private sector jobs will be affected, and possibly lost, by the VAT increase, which is just around the corner.
Barry Gardiner
Will my hon. Friend none the less acknowledge that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) made a pertinent suggestion? She identified the phase of business development that could give maximum benefit to the Treasury—when very small businesses are growing into small to medium-sized businesses, rather than when businesses are growing from zero to micro.
Chris Leslie
Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot when she made that pertinent point about micro-businesses. The Bill perhaps does not capture the benefit to the economy that small businesses have in that phase of their development. I hope that she will be a member of the Public Bill Committee that considers the Bill, although interestingly, as has been pointed out, perhaps some of the questioning from Government Members might prevent them—mysteriously—from being selected for membership of that Committee. We shall see.
The Prime Minister said before the general election that VAT is
“very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest, it does, I absolutely promise you”.
The Government have chosen a path that will hit employment, jobs and businesses very hard indeed. That should be borne in mind when we consider the Bill. It is odd that this Bill is separate from either of the Finance Bills. I have not quite figured out the Government’s tactics, and perhaps they had not quite worked out what they were going to do. In that wider context, it is necessary to compare their choices in VAT against the national insurance changes.
Hon. Members mostly spoke about part 2 of the Bill, which includes the concept of a national insurance holiday. Such a holiday is, of course, superficially attractive, but there are reasons to be concerned about the poor design of the measure, which applies only to new businesses and not to existing firms. That is important. Many businesses could be under the misapprehension that they will qualify, and a lot of effort and time will go into contacting Business Link and the Treasury to find out whether the measure applies to them, and many will be disappointed.
The proposal is complex because of the limited time and extent of the scheme. It applies only to a small number of employees and there is a convoluted application process. Government Members pointed out that efforts need to made to ensure that the measure is as simple as possible. The Bill will require HMRC to take on 240 extra staff—I am not sure that they will be additional staff, especially given that HMRC is cutting numbers—and we will press the Minister on that extra complement in Committee. Businesses could apply for the national insurance holiday but not get it because they have to swim for hours through treacle to get someone in the Treasury to pick up the phone. That could be a significant problem.
The Minister gave a vague figure when asked how many people had applied since the scheme started in September. Very few people are aware that the scheme exists, and it has hardly been advertised—[Interruption.] I am glad that Liberal Democrat Members have joined us in the Chamber, even if they are just passing through, because they have been conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps that is related to their embarrassment over the VAT comparator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who highlighted the discriminatory nature of the national insurance holiday proposal—it affects some parts of the country but not others—and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) pointed out the unfairness of a crude system that will exclude the east of England, London and the greater south-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South called it. That will cause significant disquiet, and many new entrepreneurs in those parts of the country will complain. Legitimately, they will not understand why they are excluded while reasonably affluent areas of the country outside the greater south-east—Chester, Worcester, Harrogate, York Outer, Tatton and Richmond, to name areas at random—will be eligible for the benefits. My hon. Friend put things perfectly when he said that the boffins at the Treasury ought to be capable of understanding the distinction between the greater south-east and other parts of the country. Of course they are capable of that, and we will seek to make amendments to deal with that problem in Committee.
Unfortunately, this small and partial measure—a national insurance holiday for some businesses in some parts of the country—reveals first of all the Government’s complete failure to develop a regional growth strategy, especially for the English regions. They have taken the knife not only to regional development agencies, but more importantly to the budgets at their disposal to help to build SMEs and provide the infrastructure necessary for businesses to survive. We know that for every £1 spent through the auspices of RDAs, £4.50 of benefits accrued to the regional economies. The Government disregarded evidence from the National Audit Office. They have damaged the prospects for growth in our economy, but particularly in those parts of it that have not benefited from the historic engine of growth that has surrounded London and the south-east. The Government’s alternative —these local enterprise partnerships, which are unfunded, and only partially covering the country—is a poor substitute for a proper regional economic strategy. Nearly 21 million people and 780,000 businesses will not be covered by the LEPs, the Business Secretary has described them as “chaotic”, and Richard Lambert of the CBI has called the process a “bit of a shambles”.
That sums up the Government’s lack of a growth strategy. We know that they have pulled the rug from under the growth White Paper that was meant to be forthcoming. They did that because they have no clear idea of how to drive growth: they are fixated on austerity alone and have no solutions for the long-term course of our economy. That is a great pity. The regional growth fund has been hacked down to a pathetic size, with few opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to apply for support under it. In many ways, therefore, small firms have been cast to one side, with perhaps a few crumbs from the table made available for them as a result of this Marie-Antoinette strategy of the Ministers—“Let them eat cake” seems to be the approach they are willing to take.
The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) rightly pointed out that the Government should be trying to make the banks lend more and give more support to SMEs, making inroads into that desert of loan and credit available to them. We know from the Chancellor’s statement at Treasury questions last week and from Ministers’ comments that they have gone soft on the banks in a number of ways, particularly on the coalition commitment to restart net lending targets for the banks in which they have a shareholding. They have decided now to row back from their commitment to institute those net lending targets, and I urge hon. Members, particularly Government Members, to ask serious questions of Ministers about why they are not prepared to ensure that the banks play their full part in repairing the economy.
I would not like to think that we cannot trust the Chancellor to fulfil some of the pledges to lessen the impact of these national insurance increases. As we know, the Government have already reneged on the commitment on employee national insurance changes, even though the press reported before the election that the Conservative party would do so. It is true that in many ways the personal allowance changes deal with some of these elements, but only in part—there was a commitment on national insurance as well, but it folded and absorbed it into that change. Again, it raised people’s hopes before the general election, but has not fulfilled them.
In particular, the Government are not fully offsetting these changes for employers, which will be a surprise to many people. Before the election, the Conservative party gave the impression that it was fully against the 1% increase and that it would repeal it entirely. [Interruption.] Ministers seem to think that they were going to repeal it entirely. As I see the measures, the impression they gave—[Interruption.] There was small print, it is true, but that was not the impression given. The £4.5 billion change is offset by the £3.1 billion increase in the threshold for employers on national insurance, so there is a deficit of £1.4 billion in the compensation that the Government will not be giving to employers. This is a question not necessarily of a broken promise, but of an impression that many people had that the Government were going to end the jobs tax, as the Prime Minister and Chancellor characterised it. As ever with this Government, however, when we look at the small print, we see that those changes will not be forthcoming.
We have not seen the secondary legislation yet. I would like to know when the Minister will introduce it. Presumably on Monday—traditionally the time of what was the pre-Budget report—we will hear from the Chancellor about the threshold changes and the indexation elements of these changes. Ministers have said they are going to add £21 to the employer threshold, but what will be the indexation? Will they follow the long-standing traditions of the Rooker-Wise amendment when it comes to allowance and threshold changes and follow the retail prices index option, or will they row back again and go for the cheaper consumer prices index option? In other words, will they be giving with one hand, through the threshold change, but taking with the other, by only opting for CPI?
This debate has revealed significant concerns among Government Members about the crude discrimination shown against London, the south-east and the east of England. The Bill reveals a lack of a proper strategy for growth, especially in the English regions, and the Government have revealed their preference for regressive taxation, particularly VAT, which will harm businesses and raise unemployment. We will certainly need to see serious improvements in these measures in Committee.
Justine Greening
A lot of people would debate who those jobs were taken by. In reality, unemployment was higher—every Labour Government leaves office with unemployment higher than when they entered.
I want to talk about some of the most important aspects of the Bill. Employers will be £150 better off each year for each employee earning above the threshold. There will be an increase of 650,000 in the number of employees in respect of whom employers pay no national insurance contributions. Compared to this year, employers will pay less national insurance contribution in respect of those employees earning under £20,000. In fact, low-earning employees will also be better off, because the point at which they start to pay national insurance contributions is also going up—by about £23 per week. By reversing the planned employer national insurance increases, this package will help to maintain the UK’s attraction as a place to do business. In doing so, it will support the Government’s aim of creating a fairer and more competitive tax system. The national insurance holiday will help with the transition to a more sustainable model of economic growth, encourage private sector enterprise and investment where it is most needed, create jobs in some of our poorest regions, and encourage people to become business people, entrepreneurs and wealth creators—the very people who will lead the recovery.
Those points were made eloquently by my hon. Friend Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) and later by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who also talked about the burden of red tape, which is another matter that the Government are keen to reduce for businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) talked about the need to support business, and to create new jobs and the positive culture that we need to engender throughout the country. That is absolutely what the Government want to do.
The Bill should be seen in the context of wider measures. The Government have taken several steps to support business. In the emergency budget we announced measures to reduce corporation tax, not raise it on large companies year on year. We announced measures to reduce the small companies rate of corporation tax. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about what we can do to help small companies and new companies. He was right, and that is precisely why, instead of increasing corporation tax on those companies, we preferred to try to ensure that they can enjoy a rate decrease.
We have gone further. The regional growth fund will benefit all communities in our country. The capital infrastructure plan was announced as part of the spending review, and more capital will go into supporting our country’s infrastructure than would have happened under the previous Government. We have published the local growth White Paper.
Chris Leslie
In the hon. Lady’s list of Budget changes, what will be the impact of the VAT increase on employment?
Justine Greening
Clearly, that must be seen in the context of our desperate need to tackle the fiscal deficit that the Labour party left us. It is one reason why our overall plan is not just to support business—that is clearly how we will grow our economy back to the healthy state that it needs to get to—but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to make our numbers add up across the board. We must get rid of the structural deficit that his party handed over to us.
We believe that the package of measures is right, the OECD has said that it is moving in the right direction, and it has been welcomed throughout Europe. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should not increase VAT, that prompts a question. His right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) was interviewed recently and said that the Labour party would have increased VAT, so we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s comments that his party would not have increased it. There is a blank piece of paper, and at the top are the words, “Labour economic strategy”. It is time for the Labour party to start to become credible by trying at least to pull together and to plan for our economy. Most people will put the contributions about jobs and the complaints about reductions in national insurance not going far enough in the context of a party that has absolutely no alternative plan for managing our economy. They will realise that its arguments are not credible.
The regional aspect of national insurance policy must be seen in the context of the broader package to support business. The level of VAT registrations in different parts of our country and the number of jobs created in different parts of our country show that we need to ensure that we can stimulate growth, particularly in the communities that can benefit most from it. The policy should be looked at not in isolation, but in the context of the broader tax reductions on business and the rise in the personal allowance for employees. Nearly 900,000 of the lowest-income workers in our country will be taken out of income tax altogether. The vast majority of people will benefit from our proposals, and under the Bill many of them will be small businesses with a handful of employees.
Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hoban
May I first reassure my hon. Friend that it is not the Government’s intention to join the euro during this Parliament? I am not entirely sure what the Opposition’s view is, but we have ruled that out.
My hon. Friend mentions the two mechanisms that are available for stabilisation. The stabilisation facility is purely for eurozone member states, outside the auspices of the current treaties and a bilateral, Government-to-Government arrangement. The mechanism that he refers to is available to all members of the European Union. The previous Government and the previous Chancellor decided to join it in the days prior to the formation of the current Government, and I believe that they need to be held to account for that decision.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly, these are difficult times for the world economy, and Ireland is the current focal point of market concerns. Although the Minister offered little in the way of detail today, is it not clear that, stepping back, the overall long-term lesson to learn from these developments is that economic growth matters?
Ireland is a vital trading partner, to which 7% of our exports are sold, and the current situation matters because its economic strength has a significant effect on our own growth prospects. Will the Minister accept that the emerging global recovery is fragile, and that to rely as heavily as the Government do on export-led growth in the years ahead is a risky gamble?
Will the Minister confirm that this issue extends beyond trade, and that UK banks have lent about £83 billion directly to Irish households and companies? We saw at the G20 last week that the Government need to show stronger leadership on economic growth here and abroad, so can he reassure the House that any forthcoming package from the EU will address fundamental and underlying economic issues rather than act as a sticking plaster, merely tackling symptoms that may recur again and again in future?
The previous Government were clear that the problems facing countries adopting the euro would need to be solved first and foremost by member states within the euro area. Will the Minister confirm that the principal fund designed for any loan to support the Irish or other eurozone countries would be the European financial stability facility, which is envisaged at about €750 billion? Are reports in today’s Financial Times correct that the UK is spending time and effort spinning any future action as “bilateral support” rather than co-ordinating with the EU? Would it not be better if the Government were straight with the public about what they plan?
Does the Minister accept that, although we were right to stay out of the euro, it is essential that the euro is stable and successful for the long term? Will the Minister say categorically that the Treasury’s position will be driven by the best interests of British growth and jobs and not designed to pander to the Eurosceptic political instincts of those in his party who might circle the eurozone in its time of difficulty?
In 2006, the Chancellor wrote in The Times that Ireland’s economy provided a “shining example” to us all. Is it not clear now that, rather than being an example, it provides a warning of the dangers of a one-track economic strategy, built around austerity alone, that endangers growth and puts jobs at risk? Both abroad and at home, what matters is a strong strategy to rebuild jobs and growth.
Mr Hoban
The Chancellor made it clear this morning that we will do what we need to do in accordance with Britain’s national interest. Ireland is our closest neighbour, and it is in our interests to ensure that the Irish economy is successful and that it has a stable banking system. He said that we stand ready
“to support Ireland in the steps it needs to take”
to bring about that stability. The reality is that Ireland has got some things right. It has a flexible labour market and low taxes. None the less, it made the same mistake as the previous Government—it failed to regulate its banks properly. The problem in Ireland is driven not by high public spending but by a banking crisis. If we listened to the Opposition, the UK would be the only country that was weakening rather than strengthening its fiscal position.
It is clear that the actions we have taken have been welcomed by a range of bodies at home and abroad. What is happening at the moment demonstrates that concerns about sovereign debt issues have not disappeared. We should be grateful that, thanks to the actions of this Government, Britain has moved out of the fiscal danger zone.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I recently met the leading chief executives of our largest banks, and they have come forward with proposals to improve the way they treat their customers, and to increase their lending to small businesses. We welcome the fund that they have set up. As I said, there is still more to do. The issue is complex, and one complexity has been the uncertainty of international regulation and how much capital and liquidity banks need. At the G20 that took place recently in South Korea, there was at last agreement on the new international rules, and a very lengthy transition period to them. I hope that British banks will take heed of that, and as a result, be able to increase their lending to small businesses.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Why is the Chancellor so afraid to make the banks play their full part in picking up the mess that they created? He has refused to do anything about the excessive bonuses, and we read in the paper that he is about to U-turn on the publication of remuneration. We also read that he is climbing down on the bank levy and, in his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), he is now suggesting that it is too complex to make the banks lend to small businesses. The Government are not afraid to hit children and families with cutbacks, but if we are all in this together, why is the Chancellor letting the banks off the hook?
Mr Osborne
One does wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past couple of years. We are picking up the pieces of the biggest banking crash of our lifetimes, caused by the poor regulation of the previous Government. Since coming to office, we have announced major changes in regulation, putting the Bank of England in charge—which we still do not know whether the Opposition support—and a permanent bank levy, which was opposed by every single Labour Member during the general election. We are determined to sort out the problems left to us by the previous Government.
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. He approaches the issue with significant expertise, so he will know that, if we are to achieve justice, it is not just a question of treating all those pre-1992 policyholders in the same way as everybody after 1992. One would go back and assess the pre-1992 annuitants’ asset share to see whether they were paid 105%, 110%, 120% or 140% of asset share; and one would correct that, so that the pre-1992 and post-1992 annuitants were dealt with in a balanced way. The danger with the proposed approach is that there will not be that balance. It is already clear, from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), that we do not have a basis for the figure of £200 million; it is a wet finger in the air in order to assess the situation.
The second factor that causes me significant concern is the lack of available actuarial information. I share all the concerns about the Chadwick process, and, although Sir John might have made an observation about the pre-1992 annuitants, he did not compute their liabilities. The danger, therefore, of being seduced by the strong arguments of the hon. Member for Leeds North East, is that we would enter into an open-ended commitment and have great difficulty realising its objective. During the debate, however, he has made a good case on behalf of those annuitants who go back to 1991. We should remember the judgment made by the ombudsman and her terms of reference. Most of the inquiries started looking at the period from 1999 onwards, but most of the condemnation about regulatory failure goes back to events prior to 1991. It is important that the Committee should take that factor into account when invited to say whether compensation should be granted going back very many years before that.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I should like to speak to amendment 2, which is grouped with amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) and amendment 7, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).
In wishing you a happy birthday, Mr Evans, let me say that I do not have any registrable financial interests in the matter under debate. However, I want to place on record that 18 months ago, some while before I was returned to the House, I was occasionally commissioned to give advice and training on parliamentary and public policy matters, and on one occasion, I undertook a day’s work for a company whose clients included the former chief executive of Equitable Life; by then, of course, its fund had been closed for many years. I thought it important to disclose that encounter for the avoidance of any doubt. Although I had a day’s work indirectly related to Equitable Life some time before coming into Parliament, I have not had any financial or policy discussions on the matter subsequently.
I have held this brief for a couple of weeks, and it has been an extremely steep learning curve of reviewing history and policy that dates back well over 25 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said. I was struck by the opening words of the House of Commons Library background note to the Bill:
“Describing the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill as the tip of an iceberg would be harsh on icebergs: at least they have 10% or so of their bulk above the water line. The Bill is but a tiny atoll below which lies the immense bulk of the Equitable Life tragedy.”
In general, I intend to be as supportive as I can of the Bill, as it is a positive step forward in the attempts to rectify a long and sorry saga. The amendment simply seeks to encourage the parliamentary ombudsman to
“report to Parliament on the implications for payments…of the findings of the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments, no later than one month after the publication of such findings.”
I do not want to go through the entire background that has brought us to this Committee stage today. By my count, eight separate inquiries, and possibly more, have done that, and there are conflicting and sometimes contradictory findings and accounts of what happened in the past and who should be responsible for rectifying the situation for policyholders. However, we know that in the spending review the Government accepted the ombudsman’s approach to maladministration and, more relevantly to this debate, to the framework for a compensation package. The Government say that they want to honour the interpretation of the ombudsman’s second report in full. That is their choice. There are clearly arguments in favour of that approach, as well as against it.
The Minister now places great emphasis—although it could be argued that he did so to a lesser degree before the general election, when there were a lot of loud campaigns on signing up to the EMAG pledge—on it being appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payments of compensation in this case, as the ombudsman has said. The Treasury has concluded that it will initially focus on total relative loss as the basis for its payments and will cover those losses in full for post-1992 with-profits annuitants, to the tune of some £620 million. Some 37,000 individuals will be involved in that. That means that that group of with-profits annuitants will receive compensation equivalent to that which they would have gained had they invested in companies other than Equitable Life. However, because of the cap of about £1.5 billion that the Treasury is placing on the total payouts, the other 1 million or so policyholders, including annuitants with older policies—I presume, although I may be wrong about that—will have to have their compensation for relative loss adjusted to fit within the envelope available.
The Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments, which is chaired by Brian Pomeroy, has been set up by the Minister to advise on the allocation of compensation to policyholders other than those with-profits annuitants, who will be getting 100% compensation. I am conscious of the words of Sir John Chadwick when I think through the technical challenge of administering a compensation payment scheme; it is important that its design and delivery are clear and efficient. I hope that we are not on the brink of a further failure that compounds the problems of the majority of policyholders by opting for a compensation scheme that could be so complex and opaque that it might risk grinding to a halt. We need a scheme that works in practice.
If the Minister is opting for the ombudsman’s approach—as I say, that is the Government’s choice—there are questions that need to be answered, and I would be grateful if he could reflect on those when he makes his comments. First, exactly how will the apportionment of the relative loss figures for other policyholders not receiving 100% compensation be calculated under the ombudsman’s approach, if we will not be following the Chadwick methodology given the Government’s acceptance of all 10 findings by the ombudsman?
Secondly, will the other policyholders—the vast majority—be classified into broad categories or subject to individual assessment of their cases? Will there be any burden of proof requirement on the other policyholders in the assessment of their relative loss, or is it likely that the compensation scheme will have some assumed automaticity in all cases? I ask that only because the ombudsman’s findings of loss are very specifically linked to a policyholder’s reliance on the regulatory return data. She said:
“I find that injustice was sustained by any policyholder who relied on information contained in the society’s returns between 1990 and 1996.”
I am trying to get a sense of precisely how that process will work.
Thirdly, how will the payment scheme take into account all the other maladministration factors for other policyholders that Sir John Chadwick’s methodology would not have covered, if we are following a classification scheme?
Whatever compensation scheme the independent commission eventually alights upon, it is an important starting point to establish that it is consistent with the Minister's intentions—in other words, that it encompasses all the parliamentary ombudsman’s conclusions. I gather that there are moves afoot by the Public Administration Committee to interpret whether the ombudsman’s model aligns with the payment scheme that eventually emerges. That might be a good idea, but perhaps it is a little circuitous. It would be far better, in my view, to give the ombudsman directly the right and the opportunity to say publicly whether the payment scheme is indeed in keeping with the spirit of her own findings. She could then say whether the total relative loss figures are accurate and whether the compensation scheme is fair, particularly given the controversy over the dates and whether some people will or will not be included in the 100% compensation for with-profits annuitants. The purpose of our amendment is simply to give voice to the ombudsman so that she can confirm her view.
It is worth noting at this stage that, far from granting the wishes of the Equitable Life policyholders regarding everything they wanted, the main pressure group formed to speak for their interests, EMAG, is angry and perplexed at the nature of the compensation scheme envisaged by Ministers and the constraints placed on the independent payments commission. EMAG says on its website:
“The independent Commission’s recently torn up terms of reference have not at this date”—
this was a week after the announcement in the spending review—
“yet been replaced.”
It says that the Minister’s letter of 20 October to the commission’s chairman
“makes clear that retrospectively the remit will now totally exclude”
the full class of with-profits annuitants. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East alluded to that point. EMAG continues:
“So its remit now is to divvy up £775m between 600,000 and to suggest the prioritisation. This surely cannot be what the Parliamentary Ombudsman had in mind as the role for the independent Commission?”
Given this question mark over the parliamentary ombudsman’s intentions, we felt it important to table the amendment to try to give voice to that.
There is doubt about whether the compensation arrangements are as much in alignment with the ombudsman’s approach as the Financial Secretary would like to argue, and I hope that our amendment will give the ombudsman a chance swiftly to comment on the calibre of the scheme and clarify once and for all whether it fits with her approach. We believe that that can be done quickly, and there seems to us to be no reason why it could not happen within one month of the publication of the scheme’s proposals. There would not be any reason to delay payments, and it would aid transparency and confirm whether the Government’s arrangements via the commission’s payment scheme were the same as those envisaged by the ombudsman. Although amendment 2 may be a belt-and-braces approach, at this stage of the saga we need some cast-iron assurances all round.
Chris Leslie
I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
‘(2B) The design and administration of any scheme of payments to which this section applies shall be independent of government.’.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
‘(2C) The Treasury shall publish details of the independent appeals procedure for policyholders as defined in subsection (2) above to use in the event of dispute over the compensation payment decision in their case, no later than three months after commencement of this Act.’.
Government amendment 6.
New clause 1—Distribution of payments—
‘(1) An independent payments commission shall be established comprising three members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The independent payments commission shall design a distribution scheme for payments made arising from this Act.
(3) In designing a distribution scheme under subsection (2) the independent payments commission shall consult with interested parties, including the Equitable Life Assurance Society and representatives of policyholders.
(4) The Treasury may make provision by order made by statutory instrument for payments to be made in line with the distribution scheme designed by the independent payments commission.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.
Chris Leslie
I shall speak to amendments 3 and 4, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. Amendment 3 would enshrine in the Bill the fact that the design and administration of any payments scheme should be independent of Government. It is pretty straightforward and simple—in fact, it would be difficult for it to be more straightforward and simple—but we think it important to try to encourage the Government to enshrine in the Bill the Minister’s pronouncements so far that the design of the compensation scheme should be independent of Government. That is an extremely important point, especially as it was part of the conclusions drawn by the parliamentary ombudsman herself.
The Minister has asked the independent commission, chaired by Brian Pomeroy, to report by the end of January, but there is too much wiggle room for the Minister then to take those recommendations and bring the design and the administration of the subsequent payments scheme in-house within the Treasury. I see no clear reason why the Bill does not contain clarity on the next steps forward, particularly in relation to the daunting task of creating a payments scheme to cover upwards of 1 million policyholders not falling into the 100% compensated with-profit annuitant category.
Many other policyholders are still sceptical of the Government’s intentions and EMAG, which is the body representing many of those policyholders, is voicing its discontent with those who, before the election, signed up to their pledge to create “fair and transparent” payment schemes, which they now attack as akin to asking 1 million people—to quote the words of EMAG’s Paul Braithwaite—to
“share a pack of Smarties”.
Obviously, EMAG is making its point in its own particular way, but clearly there is some doubt and some cynicism about the approach that the Minister is taking. I am sure, having heard what he has had to say before, that he indeed wants a level of independence in the payments scheme as far as possible, but I do not understand why that commitment has not been included in the legislation. That would seem to me to be the best way forward.
Amendment 4 seeks to tackle the issue of any appeals procedure that might be necessary for policyholders in the compensation scheme. We suggest that no later than three months after the commencement of the Bill the Treasury be required to spell out quite how that appeals procedure would operate for the policyholders who are not content with the judgments made in the compensation scheme that eventually ensues. Several hon. Members argued for an appeals procedure on Second Reading on 14 September—my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) among them—and it was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
In that debate, the Minister stated that he had raised the issue with his officials but that there were clear problems. He said he would pursue it, so the purpose of the amendment is to find out whether he has had the opportunity to do so and what the appeals process will look like. I certainly expect that there will be complexity, not just in the payment scheme but in any subsequent individual appeals adjudication, and that could be quite difficult to imagine at this stage. However, it needs clarification given the route that the Minister has chosen, moving away from the ex gratia model in the Chadwick methodology and instead accepting the ombudsman’s approach to compensation.
I was glad that the Minister said there were components of the Chadwick methodology that he favoured bringing into any compensation scheme—specifically that there would be no burden of proof on individual policyholders to show that they had been misled by the regulatory returns. That would certainly make the scheme simpler. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us whether the independent payments commission will eventually metamorphose into an authority for administering the payments? If so, will it be asked to design an appeals system, or is it the Treasury’s intention to undertake that part of the design?
Perhaps the Minister could say whether he sees any parallels with the appeals system set up when the former Department of Trade and Industry introduced an appeals mechanism in respect of the ill-health complaints about what was then known as vibration white finger. He will remember that a series of complex compensation payments were made in those cases, but an appeals system was set up that had a route into a judicial process and eventually to the High Court. If some policyholders might become involved in a judicial process, it would be useful to have clarity about whether the same will happen.
Will the Minister also confirm not only, as I think he said, that the administrative costs of operating the compensation programme will be separate from the compensation fund, but that any appeals costs will also be separate from the compensation fund? I am sure that the Committee will welcome any clarification of the Government’s intentions, and in the meantime we felt that the amendment was a reasonable device to ensure that those answers are forthcoming.
Bob Blackman
I shall speak to new clause 1, which I tabled, but I made a long speech on the earlier group of amendments and I do not want to repeat all the points I made then.
We need to make the whole process clear, transparent and independent of Government so that the money that has been set aside to compensate the victims of this scandal is seen to be distributed so that they receive their due compensation in a manner that is independent of the Treasury. The dead hand of Treasury officials should not mean that the scheme is designed in a particular way. I do not necessarily need to press the new clause, but I seek assurances from the Minister that we have a full, independent, transparent way to compensate the victims, who have been so badly treated over the past 10 years.
Mr Hoban
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I would expect the payments commission to design a payments scheme that would be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that all groups of policyholders were covered by it, so any appeal would be on the basis only of any data used to calculate the losses, rather than an appeal in principle against the design of the scheme. I will bear in mind the point that my right hon. Friend makes and encourage the commission, when it takes representations from people, to think as widely as possible about the different groups of policyholders that need to be taken into account.
Chris Leslie
The Minister is being extremely helpful and at least setting out a sense of what the architecture of that appeals system will be. He said that it would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Can he say for the record that the relevant statutory instrument will be subject to the affirmative procedure?
Mr Hoban
In that situation, there would be two aspects: first, the design that the payment scheme had applied; and secondly, the data that were available to the policyholder. The scheme will be designed in such a way that it does not breach the cap, so it would be possible to appeal only if the data were incorrect. The data that will be used to calculate the compensation will come from a database supplied by Equitable Life, and I hope that its data are of a high standard, so that those situations do not occur.
From the details given today, the Government have been considering very carefully the design of the appeals procedure, and we will publish details of the procedure, along with other aspects of the scheme, ahead of the time that amendment 4 proposes. So in light of that we believe that the amendment is not necessary.
Let me turn to amendment 6, which is in my name. The delivery of the Equitable Life payments scheme is an important matter, and since we took office we have made huge strides towards finding a resolution to the Equitable Life issue. However, we are aware that, for many policyholders, the issue will continue until they finally receive the money. As such, it is important that we find the right delivery partner to help us do that. Having given the matter careful consideration and looked at a range of options, our preferred option is to use NS&I, to deliver the scheme.
Officials have held many meetings with NS&I to find out not only whether it is capable of carrying out that important task, but the processes by which delivery could be carried out. There are many factors that make NS&I an appropriate delivery partner for the scheme. One of the most obvious and important is capability. As part of its everyday functions, NS&I makes millions of payments to customers every month. It has processes and infrastructure in place and experience of carrying out the functions that the scheme will require.
The need for value for money in the delivery of the scheme is also important. We are all aware that, in a climate where we have had to make difficult decisions about where to make cuts, the Government must look for ways of making the cost of delivering the scheme reasonable. Using NS&I will allow us to draw upon existing Government relationships and contracts, and I am satisfied that NS&I can provide a good delivery mechanism by which we can start making payments in line with our stated ambition of the middle of next year.
Chris Leslie
I am grateful to the Minister for the information about National Savings & Investment being the preferred vehicle. In theory, there is a separation between policy, in terms of the scheme design, and operations, in terms of the administration but blurred edges can sometimes appear between the two. Will the independent commission hold the ring in any disputes about the mechanism, timing and administration of the scheme? Who will be the final arbiter of any disputes that arise from the process? Presumably, it will be the independent commission.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is vital that we are able to operationalise, as it were, the scheme design. That is why I have encouraged the payments commission to engage with NS&I to ensure that the scheme that the commission designs can be delivered. That is an important part of the process, and I expect the commission to do that during the course of its work. I think that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Let me turn finally to new clause 1 and the status of the independent commission. I have already spoken about the importance of the work of the commission, and I am not sure that the new clause, which would give it statutory footing, would add value to its work.
Mr Hoban
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We could not use NS&I if we did not include this power in the Bill. Its purpose is to enable NS&I to act as a delivery partner, not to give the Treasury some way of reaching back into the payments scheme. I reassure him, and others, that the power is there merely to deliver the outcome of the scheme.
The role of the payments commission will be key. It will advise on the distribution of payments to those other than WPAs, and I will take its advice extremely seriously. The new clause would introduce a requirement for the commission to consult key bodies in the development of its advice, but let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it would need no statutory encouragement to do so. The commission has already met Equitable Life and EMAG, and it has published a discussion paper asking for more views on the guiding principles for determining fairness in allocating and prioritising the funding. I do not believe that an amendment to the Bill would make it any more consultative and thorough in its task. My hon. Friend is aware that I have made the commitment to go along to the all-party group with the chairman of the commission to engage with parliamentarians on this matter. That is a very clear sign of the way in which we want to engage, or the commission wants to engage, with stakeholders to come up with the best design for the scheme. I encourage people to read and engage with the commission’s discussion paper, too.
The new clause would also introduce a statutory duty for the Government to lay the design of the scheme before Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument in order to allow full scrutiny. I entirely understand the thinking behind this, and transparency has been at the heart of our approach to developing the payments scheme. However, as I have said, I will publish and lay before Parliament a document setting out the scheme design in detail, which may then be debated as Parliament chooses. Again, I do not think that a statutory requirement will make my commitment to full transparency any stronger. The Government therefore resist the new clause.
Furthermore, including provision in the Bill as to the status and operation of the independent commission would pose a very serious risk to the timetable of the commission. The commission is already in operation and has been since July, and it is due to report at the end of January. Notwithstanding the speed with which the House is dealing with the Bill, it will still take several weeks for it to finish its passage through this House and the other place. If the commission had to be reformed after the Bill received Royal Assent, to restart its deliberations so as to comply with the provisions of the new clause, there would be a real risk of delay to its advice. This would, in turn, delay the making of payments to policyholders—something that I am sure none of us would want to happen. In the light of this, and given the comfort that I hope I have provided on the operation of the commission, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Chris Leslie
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the information about the preferred vehicle for the payment scheme. Although we would have preferred to see some of the issues regarding the design of the scheme independently set out and enshrined in the Bill for the avoidance of doubt, I accept his commitment in making these points on the record. Similarly, in respect of the appeals mechanism, this debate has given us the opportunity to shed a little light on to how he envisages that arrangement playing out.
I hope that the Minister’s commitment to allowing further parliamentary scrutiny will not involve merely tabling a negative resolution on the Order Paper so that Members have to beg the indulgence of those on the Treasury Bench to find time to debate it. Given the amount of interest in these matters across the House, the affirmative procedure would be preferable, as that would allow us to consider them in detail. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Leslie
I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
‘(2D) The Treasury shall lay before Parliament details of the timings and planned dates for payments of compensation to which this section applies, no later than three months after commencement of this Act.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
‘(2A) After determining the total amount of the payments that the Treasury is to authorise under subsection (2) and the persons to whom those payments are to be made, the Treasury must secure—
(a) that each of those persons is paid the full amount due to that person in a single payment, and
(b) that the single payment is made as soon as practicable.’.
Chris Leslie
The amendment is intended to draw out more information specifically about the timing of the compensation payment scheme that the Financial Secretary envisages. In particular, we wish to ensure that the Treasury will lay before Parliament details of the timing and planned dates for payments no later than three months after the commencement of the Act.
We know that this long saga has involved many raised hopes, which have often been dashed. Although there were very good reasons for the last Government’s detailed consideration of complex issues, I accept in hindsight that decisions could and should have been taken more quickly and handled better. There were sound reasons why Ministers took a different approach to that of the Government today, but we are where we are, as the saying goes, and I wish to the ask the Financial Secretary a few questions about how the matter will progress from here onwards.
I am aware that table 3 in the spending review document, on page 12, sets out the phasing of the total finance set aside as being £520 million in 2011-12, £315 million in 2012-13, £210 million in 2013-14 and finally £100 million in 2014-15. As the explanatory notes to the Bill state, that comes to a total of £1.1 billion that has been set aside for this spending review period. Clearly there is a discrepancy with the £1.5 billion figure that we have been talking about, which presumably goes beyond the spending review period. I have a number of questions for the Financial Secretary, and I hope that he will expand upon the details.
First, on what basis have those figures been arrived at? Do they represent the expected phasing of payments, or are administrative costs included, for example, distorting the apparently higher first-year figure set out in the spending review document? I presume that the administration costs have to be set out somewhere in the budgetary figures. If so, will the Financial Secretary clarify his intentions? I do not want policyholders to labour under the misapprehension that they will necessarily receive the bulk of their compensation up front, as those figures might suggest.
At what stage will the timing and phasing of payments become clear? Does the Financial Secretary expect that the independent commission will set out those details early on, and will there be any opportunity to enshrine the timing of those arrangements in law, perhaps through regulations, even though they will be designed independently of Ministers? In other words, will the commission come back to Parliament and say, “This is how we are going proceed”?
There have been reports that three tranches of payments are expected over a four-year period. Can the Financial Secretary clarify whether that expectation is broadly reasonable for the policyholders involved? The Government are clearly about to hand over many of the arrangements to the independent commission and to National Savings & Investment, but it is still important that we know the broad parameters that they will use. That is the purpose of the amendment—we are seeking a public commitment and transparency about the timing of the payments.
Bob Blackman
I rise to support amendment 8. I do not want to go over all the ground that we covered in debating the previous amendments, but the purpose of the amendment is precisely what we talked about earlier. Hon. Members intervened to say, “Let’s get this done. Let’s get it over with and ensure that policyholders are properly compensated as quickly as possible.”
It is clear that trapped annuitants will receive their compensation in staged payments over the life of their pensions. However, we get into complex territory again when discussing the other policyholders and the difference between with-profits and other annuities. As I understand it—I hope that the Financial Secretary will clarify this—tranches will be paid out over the life of the comprehensive spending review period. The third tranche will be paid only in 2013, which still leaves some £500 million to be paid out in the next comprehensive spending review period. As we understand it, this will be a long-drawn out affair, so perhaps we can have further clarification on the issue.
Mr Hoban
Let me deal with amendments 5 and 8. We have stated that our ambition is to commence payments in the middle of next year. As the Committee is aware, we have made great progress on this issue. Within six months of coming to office, we have published Sir John’s report and the supporting material; we have provided the first bottom-up estimate of losses suffered by policyholders; we have set aside £1.5 billion for the payment schemes; we have announced that we will cover the full losses of eligible with-profits annuitants; and we have established the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments to advise us on the fair allocation of payments among policyholders. Such progress shows how seriously we take this matter and how quickly we want to find a resolution. Our ambition is to commence payments in the middle of next year, and our track record of getting things done quickly on Equitable Life shows that we are capable of doing so.
Let me set out the process that we are following to ensure that payments are made as quickly as possible. In line with our commitment to independence, we have set up the independent commission to advise us on how we can fairly allocate the funds among policyholders, with the exception of the with-profits annuitants and their estates, and on any priority groups or classes of person who should be paid earlier.
Such an approach will help to inform the sequencing of payments. To ensure that the payments can begin as soon as practicable, we have set a challenging timetable for the commission and it will report at the end of January 2011. Between the end of January and the dates that payments commence, we will be laying the advice of the independent commission over the operational technicalities of the scheme to ensure that the end-to-end process operates well. We will then publish a scheme design document that sets out the end-to-end process of the scheme in the spring. We will also finalise the arrangements with the delivery agent. That will help to ensure that when the scheme goes live, we can get payments to policyholders efficiently.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that this Government are committed to making payments to policyholders as soon as it is practicable and that we are taking all possible steps to achieve that. As a result, amendment 5 is unnecessary. I have addressed the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about the sequencing of payments. We are seeking advice from the new payments commission on how that sequencing will take place and how it will fit within the envelope of public spending that is set out in the comprehensive spending review.
Let me turn to amendment 8, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke. The amendment deals with the issue of how payments should be made. I recognise the fact that policyholders have waited far too long for a resolution to the matter. That is why at the spending review we set out how we envisage the scheme working. I want to set out that vision again. Those policyholders who do not have a with-profits annuitants policy will receive their payments in one lump sum to give them the closure that they need quickly. As it happens, amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, would mean that with-profits annuitants would not receive their payments in the way that we envisage. One of the reasons why we have been able to increase the amount available to policyholders is so that we can spread the amounts going to with-profits annuitants over the remainder of their lives. If my hon. Friend’s amendment were accepted, it would stop that process and mean that their payments would come out of the £1 billion set aside at the time of the CSR. I therefore suggest that the amendment would not help policyholders to receive quite as much money as we believe they should.
Owing to logistical constraints associated with such a large and complex scheme and to affordability constraints, we cannot make all lump sum payments immediately. They will be paid out over the first three years of the spending review period. That is why I have asked the commission on payments to advise me on whether there are any classes of policyholders whose payments should be prioritised, to ensure that those in most urgent need of redress are paid first.
Chris Leslie
This may be a naive question, but box 2.7 in the spending review says:
“The Government expects the total amount of funding for the scheme to be in the region of £1.5 billion.”
That is the envelope that we have been debating, and that figure matters quite a lot, especially for those other policyholders. However, the same box says that
“£1 billion will be allocated to the Payments Scheme in this Spending Review period, which will cover…the initial costs of the first three years of WPA”—
with-profits annuitants—
“regular payments, and all payments to other policyholders.”
Can the Minister explain the difference between the £1 billion and the £1.5 billion, and say how the timings will be affected? Presumably the other £500 million will arrive after the spending review period, but I am a bit confused on that point.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which gives me the opportunity to clarify the make-up of the £1.5 billion. The figure includes the full cost of the losses to with-profits annuitants—approximately £620 million—which will be made through regular payments. However, taking into account the pressures on the public purse, the Treasury could allocate only £1 billion over the first three years of the spending review. That will cover two things: the first three years of payments to with-profits annuitants, and lump-sum payments to all other policyholders and to the estates of deceased with-profits annuitants.
It is important to start to pay off with-profits annuitants’ losses quickly, alongside the lump-sum payments to other policyholders. About £225 million of the £1 billion is for with-profits annuitants and their estates, leaving approximately £775 million for lump-sum payments to non-with-profits annuitants. The Towers Watson estimate of £620 million for with-profits annuity losses leaves approximately £395 million for the rest of the WPA losses from 2014-15 onwards. Those who are quicker at mental arithmetic than me will have worked out that the total comes to about £1.4 billion. The balance is a contingency, because the payments to with-profits annuitants are based on their longevity. We hope that they live long and healthy lives, and that buffer is set aside to cover this need. That is how the maths works out.
Chris Leslie
The Minister has put on record some helpful information about the timing of the payment arrangements, and I do not think that it would add a great deal if we were to press the amendment to the vote. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“In determining the amount of the payments that it is appropriate for the Treasury to authorise under subsection (2), the Treasury must have regard to such matters relating to the adverse effects of that maladministration on those persons and the proper calculation of their resulting losses as have been determined by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to be relevant to and appropriate for that calculation.”.—(Frank Dobson.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment made: 6, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) The functions of the Director of Savings include anything the Director is appointed by the Treasury to do in connection with payments to which this section applies.”.—(Mr Hoban.)
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 68), That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Third Reading
Chris Leslie
The short debate that we have had has covered a set of specific issues, largely arising from the Government’s conclusions in the spending review about how to compensate those suffering injustice following maladministration by insurance and financial regulators in the case of Equitable Life. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to talk about the independence of the payment scheme. We have been able to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on whether it will match the ombudsman’s model. I am glad that the Minister said that he would welcome further comments from her on the design of the compensation scheme. It will be interesting to see whether she endorses it as being the fair and transparent scheme that many Members have pledged to deliver.
We have also discussed the appeals procedure and the timing of payments. In response to the second ombudsman’s report, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), offered an apology for the past failings of the regulators. That is an important point, which is separate from the question of whether the regulators can be held fully or only partly responsible for the losses incurred by the maverick actions of Equitable Life’s management during the 1980s and early 1990s. I am sorry that, at least during this debate, Ministers have not also expressed regret, clearly and on the record, for the part that their party played during the 1980s in failing adequately to establish a regulatory system to prevent the vast bulk of the Equitable Life problems from arising in the first place. I know that it was a long time ago and that none of the current Ministers were in any way responsible, but I think it would have been a helpful gesture to draw a line under the failings that had occurred in the past. After all, Lord Penrose concluded in his inquiry report that Ministers in the late 1980s
“did not regard the subject”
of updating life insurance regulation
“as a high priority for legislation.”
He noted that
“the Government's objective was to deregulate, to reduce regulatory burdens on business, to avoid interference in private companies, and to let market forces prevail.”
Mr Hoban
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to this topic, but we have already clearly expressed our apologies. Unlike the last Government, we immediately accepted all the ombudsman’s findings of failure. The hon. Gentleman’s party did not even have the courage to do that.
Chris Leslie
I am glad that the Minister has been able to reiterate points that he did not make in his Third Reading speech. I do not necessarily want to reopen the box entirely, but it is important for both parties to recognise that mistakes have been made, and that things should and could have been done better by those on both sides. In particular, however, I think it is important not to gain the impression that failings did not occur on the watch of the Minister’s party. Lord Penrose found that Conservative Ministers
“argued against reform in the… 1990s”,
and that the United Kingdom “led the resistance” to Europe-wide attempts to update the third life directive. Those who argue that Labour alone fell short in respect of reacting to the Equitable Life debacle should realise that the ideological approach pursued by the Conservatives was absolutely central to causing the mess in the first place.
As Members know, the last Government would have chosen a different route to compensation. We were anxious that a poorly designed compensation scheme might entail a person-by-person review aimed at disentangling individual losses one by one, examining more than 30 million investment decisions by 1.5 million people over 20 years. That would have been a mammoth administrative task. Moreover, the ombudsman had implied that individuals would need to prove that they had relied on the regulatory returns and had been misled as a result. The last Government did not believe that such an approach could be feasible.
It was for those reasons that Sir John Chadwick was asked to explore a more realistic and reliable payment scheme methodology. He concluded that the Treasury should deal with the issue by grouping cases into about 20 broad categories of policyholders who were in similar circumstances. The payment scheme would then deduce the relative loss in each category in comparison with the outcomes of a basket of other policies that had not suffered from the same regulatory failings. The Government have clearly embarked on a different course, although they have taken up some of Chadwick’s pragmatic suggestions about the automaticity of compensation. We genuinely hope that that will work.
We are pleased that this short paving Bill is before the House, because we feel strongly that the matter should be resolved. The Committee stage gave us an opportunity to question the Government on several aspects of their approach, and I am glad that we have had an opportunity to draw them out further today.
Let me end by simply raising a question mark over the words of Ministers before May, when the general election took place, in comparison with their actions today. Many hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders—possibly as many as 1 million—were led to believe that in signing the EMAG pledge, Ministers were supporting a particular outcome that may not now arrive. Most Conservative Members signed that pledge. They pledged to their constituents that
“if I am elected to Parliament at the next general election, I will support and vote for proper compensation for victims of the Equitable Life scandal and I will support and vote to set up a swift, simple, transparent and fair payment scheme—independent of government—as recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”
As the payment decisions are made in the next few years and the cheques finally start to arrive, EMAG members and policyholders who are not in line to receive 100% compensation for their full relative losses will have to draw their own conclusions as to whether the Government have fulfilled their promises. So far the signs are that many policyholders do not feel that those Members who signed the pledge are keeping their word. They feel that the scheme will fall short of proper compensation and a fair payment scheme.
Chris Leslie
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) as he has attended the entire debate.
Jonathan Evans
The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that £1.5 billion does not amount to proper compensation. I came to watch the earlier debate when the Minister was the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and he was standing by the Chadwick figure, but the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) now seems to be saying that four times more than the position the Labour party were defending back then is not proper compensation.
Chris Leslie
The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I did not sign the EMAG pledge. I always felt, as did many of my colleagues, that there were real and practical difficulties in raising constituents’ hopes in the way that the hon. Gentleman perhaps did. That is a matter for him and his constituents. It is up to him to convince them that the result of these deliberations has been to put in place full and fair compensation in accordance with the pledge. I am simply making the point that this is a matter of honour for those hon. Members who signed the pledge.
Mrs Main
I rise to gently chide the hon. Gentleman. We have had discussions with EMAG representatives, and I do not think they were under any illusions that they were necessarily going to get back every single penny that was lost. I have talked to my local representatives, and I think they are realistic enough to realise that we have done the best we possibly can. I am not happy with the situation for the pre-1992 annuities, but even so, what we are giving them is 100 times better than previously. They look to us to deliver that, but they are realistic enough to know that, in these hard times we cannot give them everything. I think for the hon. Gentleman to say, “I didn’t sign the pledge” is just copping out.
Chris Leslie
I disagree about the pledge, and I did not sign it for particular reasons, but my point is simply that the hon. Lady signed the pledge before the general election and it committed her to a number of things, one of which was somehow to fulfil the aspirations of those policyholders who interpreted the pledge in a particular way. I, too, have met EMAG representatives and they are not as happy and understanding as the hon. Lady suggests.
Chris Leslie
Well, if the hon. Lady understands something different, I will give way to her again.
Chris Leslie
The difference is that I did not raise people’s hopes for electoral purposes—because I wanted to harvest their support—only to dash them after the general election. We are very used to Conservative Members making pledges on a whole series of things—not least student finance, which is quite pertinent right now—and then breaking their promises. I am not saying that Members are necessarily in breach of their pledge. All I am saying is that it is for them to honour it, in accordance with their consciences and what their constituents will say to them as to whether the compensation outcome amounts to a fair payment scheme and proper compensation.
Chris Leslie
Having clearly touched a nerve, it will be interesting to hear from other Members as well.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
There is a key point for the victims of this scandal in my constituency of Stourbridge. Most of those whom I have met understand that the commitments that were given always had the proviso of the state of the public finances. That is a very relevant point.
I wish so much that we could have offered people more, but given the difference between Chadwick’s recommendations, which were the baseline, and the £1.5 billion, as well as the state of the public finances, many people who have suffered in this scandal will feel that they have been treated reasonably, although I accept the hon. Gentleman’s assessment that the EMAG pressure group is still battling for more. That is its role as a pressure group.
Chris Leslie
A reasonable point from the hon. Lady. All I am saying is that the pledge that some Members signed did not say explicitly, “As resources allow.” [Interruption.] No, it does not say that in the pledge. The pledge simply says that they will have a fair and transparent payments scheme. I doubt very much that the vast majority of those other policyholders who will not be getting the 100%—clearly it will be welcomed by those with-profits annuitants, who are receiving 100% of their relative losses—but may be receiving, I am told, between 15 and 20% of their relative losses will feel that hon. Members who raised their hopes are actually fulfilling them.
Jonathan Evans
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to his role, but I would have hoped that he had read the ombudsman’s report before representing the Opposition at the Dispatch Box. He would have seen that the ombudsman says that the compensation figure must take account of the effect on the public purse.
Chris Leslie
I completely accept that that is what it says in the detail of the ombudsman’s report, but it does not say that in the pledge that the hon. Gentleman signed. In an electoral context, he raised the hopes of many of his constituents. He may be able to face them and say, “Absolutely, I am fulfilling what I promised.” If he feels that and they are happy with it, they will re-elect him, and everybody will be happy and ride off into the sunset, but I have a feeling that some policyholders will continue to be discontented with the Government’s position. It certainly did not say, either in the manifestos or in the pledge that he signed, perhaps scribbled in a little addendum, “Oh, by the way, we are going to give you only a fraction of the £4.5 billion to £6 billion that you understand as the relative losses.” That is simply not there. I am not claiming, because I did not sign that pledge, to have raised those hopes, but Members on the Government Benches did.
Sir Alan Beith
Is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that he did not promise anything, he was not going to give anything, Chadwick was the maximum and he might as well vote against the Bill?
Chris Leslie
Liberal Democrats need to learn that people should not make promises they cannot keep. There is a suggestion that Liberal Democrats in particular have been growing used to making promises that they cannot keep, so the right hon. Gentleman should pause for a moment because his political arguments are haemorrhaging on a number of fronts. That is because some Members raised a series of aspirations before the election, making suggestions and promises, and there are some who will feel that he is now falling short of that. That is the only point that I seek to make. I am not claiming perfection for my behaviour, nor am I claiming in any way that I could fulfil all the hopes of the policyholders, but my point is that Members on the Government Benches did, and they should be hoist on their own petard for signing that EMAG pledge.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know him to be a generous Member of the House. With his customary generosity, will he acknowledge that the amount is nevertheless three times that which the previous Government said they would have given as compensation?
Chris Leslie
We will not know that, because Chadwick’s report was published after the general election. We had a series of steps that would have then been taken, but history went in a different direction because the spending review and the Budget were undertaken by a different party, not by our party in government. I am not saying that there are magic solutions to this issue. These are complex matters and there are technical reasons for both the methodologies that are being used in the compensation and the timings and the discussions around them. It is important to bear in mind the wider needs of the public purse. We have consistently said that and now the Government have come round to that point of view. I understand why they did.
Mr Hoban
The previous Government took six months to dither over what they would do about the ombudsman’s report, whereas we accepted her recommendations straight away—there had been maladministration, there should be compensation for relative loss, and affordability was a key part of her recommendations. We accepted that quickly, whereas his right hon. and hon. Friends sat on their hands.
Chris Leslie
I disagree with that. The hon. Gentleman certainly did not say before the general election that this would be £1.5 billion—[Interruption.] Oh, did he? Where did he say before the general election that this would be £1.5 billion? I shall give way to him if he can give a reference for that. Answer came there none—proof in point that after the general election a different set of expectations was set out by the Government than those that might have been an interpretation of the Minister’s words before the election.
Chris Leslie
I have given way to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) several times, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns).
Conor Burns
Will the shadow Minister at least concede that one of the biggest groups of victims—some were in my constituency—were those who died while waiting for his Government to make any progress? This Government should at least be congratulated on getting on and doing something, because in this context something is definitely better than the nothing that was offered by the Opposition.
Chris Leslie
I am not going to claim that everything in the garden was rosy in the period that elapsed between the findings of the various commissions. Suffice it to say that Penrose spent some two and half years on his inquiry and the ombudsman spent nearly four years on hers. This was not simply a Government issue. There were very complex issues in which a set of decisions had to be resolved. There are perfectly good and sound reasons for some of the time that it took to come to conclusions on these questions. Things could certainly have been handled better; I have already said that this evening.
Mr Marcus Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman explain the inactivity on the matter while his party was in government, particularly during the demise of the Icelandic banking industry, when his Government bailed out many investors who were affected by that at the drop of a hat?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) answers, may I remind the House that this is Third Reading and that it is timed, which means that it will conclude at three minutes past 5? Members who have sat through the debate this afternoon and who wish to speak on Third Reading might not get the opportunity to do so. I shall call Mr Leslie back to the Dispatch Box to respond to the intervention, but perhaps everybody in the Chamber could bear my point in mind.
Chris Leslie
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is certainly incumbent on us all to be brief as far as we can. I have set out the position as I see it. I know that Government Members will disagree, but I do not wish to impugn their intentions. I was simply seeking to point out that they are held to a pledge that not all Members are held to and that they will be judged on that.
We are not minded to oppose the legislation this evening. This is a necessary paving Bill, but we accept that the devil will be in the detail and we await the further scrutiny of the measures that will come subsequently.
European Union Economic Governance
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Lurking on the future business section of the Order Paper for some weeks has been a motion for the House to note the European Union taskforce report on European economic governance. Although that gestation period seems to have been overtaken by the events that have transpired following the European Council, it is a pity that an urgent question from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was required before light began to be shed on any of the details being considered by the real power brokers in Europe. Our Prime Minister was clearly left on the sidelines in many of the discussions. If I were generous, I might say that that was fair enough, given that we are outside the eurozone. However, the European Council meeting at the end of October showed clearly that the Germans and the French are very much in the driving seat, leaving the Prime Minister with a few scraps to hold aloft as pseudo-trophies in the European Union budget discussions while clearly being unsure how to cope with the prospect of a new treaty being dropped in his lap.
Mark Reckless
As the Front Benches appear to be in agreement on this issue, may I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? Surely the point is that, as he said, France and Germany, which are in the eurozone, need something from us. We had a veto, yet we agreed to this notwithstanding the veto. The 2.9% had already been agreed by the Council. We had a veto on the Next Perspective. What do we get in return?
Chris Leslie
I shall deal with the nature of the changes in a moment—and there are changes. It would be a bit disingenuous to suggest that nothing is changing in this regard.
From our point of view, eurozone stability and a sensible crisis mechanism are worth while, and it is clearly in our national interest to engage strongly in discussions and reforms that promote economic stability across Europe. We will support sensible changes that benefit the United Kingdom. The core idea of improving the rescue mechanisms for eurozone countries facing severe economic difficulties makes logical sense, and it is also wise to find a permanent footing on which to base any new rules rather than relying on temporary arrangements that might either expire or be subject to legal challenge. However, the Prime Minister and the Government are protesting just a little too much that this is entirely a matter for the eurozone, and absolutely nothing to do with us. In fact, there are indirect implications for our economy because of changes that might affect economic growth in the eurozone, as well as direct policy implications that could change the way in which we operate in the United Kingdom.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will recall that the previous Prime Minister and his Government drew up five economic tests. Had it not been for him, we would not be debating the motion today, because we would be part of the eurozone.
Chris Leslie
It was certainly worth punctuating the debate with that point, which my hon. Friend made forcefully and well.
Mr Leigh
Will the hon. Gentleman now kindly respond to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)? Is the Labour party prepared ever to fight for a repatriation of powers, and would it be prepared to use the veto that it has used for the purposes of this measure as a bargaining chip to gain that repatriation of powers?
Chris Leslie
Our perspective is clearly different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I want to consider what is on the table. There are details still to come when the European Council meets in December, and we shall have to look at those proposals then. It seems to me that there is a case to be made for some sort of objective analysis of just what transfers of policy may or may not be involved in the proposals that are before us today.
Philip Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman think it makes sense for an organisation whose accounts have not been signed off by auditors for 16 consecutive years to be given more powers over economic and financial governance?
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own inimitable way, but I do not want to be diverted from the substance of what is before us. There is a substantial proposition on the table, and I think it is important for all Members to understand it. The detail that will eventually emerge from the final taskforce report is important, and it would be useful if the Minister could deal with some of the question marks that hang over some of the detail, to which Members have already alluded.
For example, a series of new fiscal disciplines—as they are called—will be pursued across the European Union but, of course, largely for eurozone countries; yet the adoption of enforcement measures will apparently be subject to the negative qualified majority voting procedure. That presumably means that the United Kingdom will take part in any of those decisions. If that is so, can the Minister say how we will inform our policy position if we are involved in votes on enforcement measures? While we may not have a vetoing power here, our role could be strategically significant.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is using terms like “largely” and “presumably”. These are not definite enough for me. Please will he be firmer and clearer in what he is saying?
Chris Leslie
I wish I could be firmer and clearer, but we are dealing with a malleable set of proposals. The bundle of directives keeps changing, moving and morphing from phase to phase, and the directives will clearly go into a different phase when the European Council meets in December, but we can discern the rough direction of travel, and many Members will take a firm view on that.
The Minister talked about the sanctions. Yes, it is the case that they may not apply to the UK because of our opt-out from the euro, but the range of non-binding standards and early warning requirements in the event of significant deviation from the adjustment path apparently would apply to the UK; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case. Even if the UK is to be subject only to such commentaries, public observations or other non-binding standards, the Minister should tell the House how they would work and what the implications for us would be. Clearly, what the taskforce report calls the new reputational and political measures will be phased in progressively, but is it correct to read the proposals as also applying to the UK? In other words, is it not true that we will be subject to reporting requirements, potential formal reporting to the European Council in certain circumstances and enhanced surveillance—whatever “enhanced” may mean—if the situation dictates? Is it not also true that we will be subject to onsite monitoring from a mission of the EC—which I thought was curious, and which certainly might be of interest to some Conservative Members—and possible publication in the public domain of these reports and surveillance? Will the proposed regulations to strengthen the audit powers of Eurostat also apply to the UK, and what are the anticipated compliance costs of those changes for the UK and the Treasury? If we fail to comply with the proposed requirements, is it not the case that sanctions could be applied to the UK?
Mr Redwood
If this House and a properly elected British Government have chosen a certain course of action on the deficit or the balance of payments—or on whatever—how does it help to have the EU marking the homework, condemning it and using moral suasion to say that this House is wrong?
Chris Leslie
Well, my point is that it may or may not be a sensible move—as a pro-European I think benefit could come from it—but what is important is that we get clarity from the Government about what exactly is on the table. If there are to be treaty changes and other new regulations, the Minister has to be straight about that with the country and the House. The latest sanctions in the framework—in terms of interest bearing deposits, non-interest bearing deposits and eventual fines—may not apply to the UK, but there is a first phase to that process which is the application of standards and assessments of our economic and fiscal position, and that will apply to the UK. The motion seeks approval for the Government’s position that any sanctions should not apply to the UK because of our euro opt-out, but there are developments here that strengthen the role of the EU in respect of our economic policy, and while that may be a good thing, some Members of this House would be wary of it.
There are also wider implications for our economy and our growth trajectory. For example, I am particularly intrigued by the German argument that bondholders should have greater liability—such as in the form of interest payment holidays, or bond value haircuts, as they are known—for potential future eurozone bail-outs. The implications for UK banks and bondholders could be significant if they are embroiled to a larger extent in the crisis management mechanism. UK banks hold particularly high proportions of Irish and Spanish liabilities. A recent Bank for International Settlements report found that 22% of Irish bonds and 11% of Spanish bonds are in UK hands. There has been much discussion of whether City investors are therefore subject to higher risk, or whether the markets have already priced that in. Either way, there are indirect implications for British investors. Moreover, the new suite of policy changes affecting eurozone economic governance will not just be on paper; the changes will bite in the real economies in each of the eurozone countries and could have a bearing on their own internal growth and investment plans.
Mark Hendrick
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. While the UK may not be signed up to the stability and growth pact and we may not be subject to EU deficit procedures, stability and growth in the eurozone are very important to the British economy. Moreover, the way in which the Government are dealing with our deficit will put British growth at risk, and that is part and parcel of how we interact with the other economies in Europe.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. If fiscal policies across the eurozone are simultaneously shifted towards a marginally more deflationary stance as a result of the new policy framework that we are debating tonight, the resulting contraction in economic activity and consumer spending could impact on the sale of British goods and services in those countries. In other words, the eurozone—which, as we know, is by far the UK’s largest trading partner, accounting for more than 50% of our exports—could face economic challenges and, in turn, it is likely that UK companies will face problems exporting to those markets. Add to that the G20 discussions on international currency issues and an influx of capital to the eurozone following worries over the dollar and the Chinese renminbi and we can imagine a relative appreciation of the euro afflicting our exporters still further. We will have to see how that latter issue pans out in particular, but this is of significance to the UK.
Mr Jenkin
Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that somehow these arrangements will give us more influence and more control over the economies of other member states? On that basis, should we therefore not be seeking to enter into arrangements of the same sort with, say, the United States, so that we can control its deficit? The US deficit will have far more effect on our economy than any individual deficit in any individual member state of the EU.
Chris Leslie
Those of us in opposition are merely asking questions and scrutinising what is on the table, but we are trying to find out what will be the impact on the UK. Ministers are arguing, “Don’t worry, absolutely nothing changes and there is no impact whatever.” As far as I can see, there are strands and suggestions that there will be an impact, both direct and indirect. In that respect, although we might have different views, there might be a point on which we can agree.
If the eurozone deflation and the shrinkage of European economic markets affect our exports, that matters, because the Treasury has depended on them so greatly. The June Budget and the spending review were predicated on a return to strong economic growth here in the UK, based principally on higher business investment and strong export growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility analysis shows that the cuts imposed because of the Chancellor’s austerity programme and his overly speedy deficit reduction strategy will see private consumption shrink rapidly and Government consumption doing the same.
Cuts in domestic expenditure will hit growth—that much is clear—but the Chancellor has bet the shop on the countervailing growth in trade and business investment. The Treasury states clearly that it needs £100 billion of growth in exports and business investment, yet the last time we saw such a massive rate of growth for exports was in 1974 and we achieved that rate of improvement in business investment only in 2005, but the Chancellor’s sums depend on the UK achieving both those record levels in each of the next three years—a very tall order indeed, equivalent to tripling our exports to the US and seeing our exports to China grow 20 times or to India 40 times.
Clearly, our reliance on the eurozone’s appetite for our exports is central to the Chancellor’s strategy, so there are implications for British fiscal policy here.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He focuses on trade, but it is in trade that we have our worst possible relationship with the rest of the EU. We have a gigantic trade deficit. We buy billions more from them every month than they do from us. The only advantage we have had in the last year or two is that we have depreciated the pound relative to the euro and we have started to see a slight improvement in our trade balance with the EU.
Chris Leslie
If we see growth dented here in the UK because those ripples flow from the eurozone—changes as a result, perhaps, of the measures we are debating—we could see further implications for spending cuts here in the UK in respect of vital public services and more austerity when perhaps stimulus would be the order of the day. However, there is a balance of risks here and it is clearly important for fiscal discipline to be exercised, but responsibly so. We have argued for a sensitive and measured approach to deficit reduction in this country, rather than the doctrinaire approach of steep and swift cuts favoured by the parties whose Members sit on the Government Benches.
I am glad to note the ironic analysis of the Minister in the explanatory memorandum that was referred to, which he signed last week. He said that he believed
“that the main consideration should be whether a Member State’s debt is on a downward trajectory, rather than the specific pace of annual debt reduction”.
He also said that the numerical pace should remain
“only as an indicative benchmark…that…is not used as a concrete rule by which Member States’ debt reduction plans are judged.”
How right he is—if only he applied such pragmatic sense to our economy and public services in the UK, too.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s measured canter around the potential risks associated with this legislation and I am also entertained to hear the words “stability and growth” coming from Members on the Opposition Benches—something that perhaps they did not achieve towards the end of their time in office. However—perhaps I am front-running his conclusion—is he going to vote for or against the legislation tonight?
Chris Leslie
As I see it, it is difficult to know yet what propositions are before us. I want to hear the Minister’s answers to our questions and we will make up our minds then. The substance of the regulations and the eventual treaty changes might be beneficial, but we also have to wait and see what President Van Rompuy proposes in his eventual treaty amendment and what emerges from the December Council meeting. We are not at the end of a process; we are in it. There are further propositions to be put on the table.
Mark Hendrick
One regulation that might well be on the table is for any member state of the European Union, within or outside the eurozone, that has a debt level of greater than 60% of GDP to reduce that debt at a rate of at least 5% per annum. That could well be a regulation that the Government sign up to, even though they might not be subject to penalties if they do not keep to it.
Chris Leslie
Indeed. There could be significant direct policy changes as regards transfers of policy and also indirect economic impacts on the UK. We have to see more detail about what will emerge from those who are in the driving seat—unfortunately, that does not seem to be either our Chancellor or our Prime Minister.
Matthew Hancock
I am extremely grateful. The Minister made a clear statement that this House, under this Government, will retain fiscal sovereignty. Would the hon. Gentleman?
Chris Leslie
We take the view, as we always have, that where it was in the British interest to co-operate with our European colleagues, we would do so. The hon. Gentleman’s continuing loyalty to the Chancellor is laudable—he has a record of that—but I am not sure that he has convinced the colleagues on his own side. The coalition remains precarious on Europe, straddling so many major divisions on how to proceed. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister is on the margins of these discussions in Europe when he is buffeted between the margins of his own Government. He is caught somewhere between the pro-European enthusiasms of the Deputy Prime Minister—at least, that used to be his position before the general election, and I am not quite sure what his position is now—and the anti-European Union noises from a sizeable chunk of his party. Will the Prime Minister persuade his colleagues that any treaty should not require a referendum? We shall have to wait and see. Although the Government might be concentrating on papering over the cracks in the coalition, the Opposition will monitor closely the impact of these changes on exports, growth, jobs and the prosperity of this country. Those are the issues that matter to our constituents and they are our priorities.
Vulnerable People (CSR)
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
As ever, Mr Crausby, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair.
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on raising this important strand of an exceptionally complex set of announcements, which have come thick and fast from the Government and are only now beginning to reveal themselves to MPs, never mind to the wider public, as the implications begin to hit home. A lot of implications will not hit home until the next financial year and then into the next few years of this Parliament, at which point I would expect growing discontent and increased shock and surprise at how harsh the Government chose to be on the most vulnerable in society through their spending policies.
The hon. Member for St Ives is being exceptionally honourable in this matter, and he genuinely feels strongly about trying to speak up on behalf of vulnerable people, but when he says that certain consequences of the Government measures are “perhaps unintentional”, I suspect that he is being more than generous. Part and parcel of the political strategy that goes alongside the Government’s supposed economic approach is ensuring that the welfare changes and reductions in expenditure hit the poorest in society who, on balance, tend not to vote for the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman will have greater insight than me into the Liberal Democrats’ approach, although I suspect that even he might not know what is going on with those at senior levels, as they assimilate ever more closely with the leadership of the Conservative party. I still regret the choice that his colleagues made to prop up and provide the scaffolding for this harshly strategic and deliberate set of decisions. Those in the Conservative party have been planning such decisions for many years, and attempts to scale back the role of public investment in our economy have been part and parcel of their approach throughout. They are now able to unwind that approach with a certain degree of alacrity under the guise of deficit reduction.
Annette Brooke
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, but does he agree that much-needed welfare reform should be tackled? There might be questions about how to tackle it, but does he agree with the general principle?
Chris Leslie
Nobody disagrees that we need a level of welfare reform, but the question of how we do that is at the centre of the debate. We could shut down the Department for Work and Pensions tomorrow and not spend an extra penny. That would be a degree of welfare reform, but it would be so ridiculous that it would be off this planet. We could have a level of reform that was too slow and did not really bite. I believe that the trajectory of reforms pursued by the previous Administration sought to strike a fair balance.
The extent to which Ministers are reducing what is known as “annually managed expenditure” within the welfare budget has been designed around a political strategy. By taking that amount from the welfare budget, the Chancellor tried to come within spitting distance, as he saw it, of Labour’s plans for deficit reduction within the departmental expenditure limits. That political strategy rapidly fell apart, particularly because the Opposition accepted the need for a certain level of welfare change.
Let us look at the points raised by the hon. Member for St Ives. If the welfare changes are not handled sensitively and their implementation is blind to the human costs involved, some of them will affect the real lives of real people. Such people will be increasingly frightened and unable to cope with some of the changes, and that will create great harm. That harm might not have the quantifiable economic or econometric measurements that we traditionally look at when monitoring fiscal and monitory policy, but it is real and will have an indirect effect on our economy.
Andrew George
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s narrative, but before he strays too far from his point about the intentionality—or otherwise—of the possible consequences of the reform package, let me make it clear that I do not associate myself with his analysis. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Government or the Minister to impoverish people deliberately.
The point that I was building towards concerns the balance of risk. Taking a risk with the poor needs to be balanced by taking a risk with the banking sector, which I do not think that we are doing at the moment. If we are to probe policy so as to get the balance right between those with broad shoulders and more vulnerable people, we must put pressure on the top end just as much, if not more.
Chris Leslie
As I said, the hon. Gentleman is being more than fair—perhaps a little too fair—in his analysis of the Government’s intentions. I hope that I am wrong in saying that a measure of deliberate choice is involved. However, the weekends at Chequers during which the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister pored over the political stratagems that they could devise, having linked some of the measures in the spending review together, suggest that a balancing act was going on in the Government to think about who they could hit and get away with it, rather than the human consequences. That is a difference of opinion that we will have to accept.
Chris Leslie
I would like to make progress on the issue of housing benefit, but I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Julian Smith
The comments that the hon. Gentleman made just now and at the beginning of his speech are insulting to Ministers and, certainly, to Back-Bench coalition Members.
Chris Leslie
I am sorry if I have hurt the hon. Gentleman’s feelings; that would be a dreadful thing to do. However, it is far worse to hit the poorest and most vulnerable people in society through the measures that he will support by walking through the Lobby. The warm words that he espouses are all very well, although so far he has not said much about vulnerability and the impact of the reforms. He is doing his job and wants to progress through his party—I wish him luck with that—but the measures that he will be supporting will be harmful, and I am sorry if he feels that that is insulting.
Let us look at some of the changes to housing benefit. As I said, housing benefit needs to be reformed, but not necessarily at the pace and with the harshness espoused by the Minister. Some of the combined, compounding changes will come in quickly, with some starting on 1 October next year. According to the Government’s own figures, the reduction from the median 50th percentile to the 30th percentile for housing benefit will affect 642,000 people. Many hon. Members, including the Minister, will be getting letters from their constituents about that. Those reforms will leave some people £39 worse off per calendar month. Some landlords might be happy to say, “That’s all right; we will bear the loss”, but others will say, “Sorry, that is unacceptable. Out you go.” What will be the consequences for homelessness? What will the pressures be on the indebtedness of individuals who are already stretched with credit card debts and so on? Will we see even greater pain at that level?
The National Housing Federation said in the newspapers today that the reforms were “brutal cutbacks.” Those are not my words, so if the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) feels that such words are insulting, he should speak to the National Housing Federation. It said that the reforms risk the prospect of people
“falling into debt or hardship or being forced to move out of their home and away from their local community.”
That sudden drop in income and the rushed nature of reform are what the Labour party fundamentally disagrees with. Of course we accept that the deficit needs to be tackled, but we take a different view of how to do that.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
You do not know how to do it.
Chris Leslie
We have a set of strategies, but we do not have the phalanx of Treasury officials lined up behind the Minister.
Justine Greening
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will outline three or four specific measures that his party would propose to tackle the deficit.
Chris Leslie
Given that we are talking about vulnerability, let us look at the impact of the spending review. The hon. Member for St Ives mentioned the banking levy but, as we debated last night, that is a puny and pathetic attempt by Ministers to let the banks off the hook while they are hitting families and children hardest of all—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Minister does not like my example, but she has made a choice and we would do things differently. It is important that the record shows that the Government have decided to let the banks off the hook lightly.
The Minister may well bleat and moan, but she should realise, for example, that cutting mortgage interest support for the most vulnerable will, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said, help to create a cycle of despair for many people. I do not think that the archbishop is a particularly partisan individual, and it would be a great pity if the remarks of those in civil society were dismissed.
I am interested in the Government’s approach to the universal credit, which they are looking to put in place as part of welfare reform. In many respects, it is a reasonable concept. However, I cannot understand why their approach is then to cut council tax benefit by 10% and to localise it, as has been announced. How is that consistent with the universal credit policy? Will the Minister elaborate on how the universal credit arrangement will come into place for the most vulnerable people when the council tax benefit is not part of it? I would like to understand the consistency, because that change will hit the poorest in society, as will many of the disability welfare changes.
We accept that disability welfare reforms are needed but, again, we must at least ask questions about the pace and harshness of some of those changes—as the hon. Member for St Ives has done. Taking out £2 billion by limiting the contributory employment and support allowance to the very disabled raises questions about how those who no longer have such support will cope. It is incumbent on those who are proposing the cut to explain where the support for those individuals will come from. Even pensioners will feel the impact of many of the changes, and they will lose out because of the four-year freeze in the savings credit element of the pension credit.
Public service reductions will have an indirect effect. This debate is not just about welfare, because the public service reductions announced in the spending review will also have a disproportionate impact on the very poorest in society. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said,
“modellable cuts to public services are regressive”.
There will also be a cut in health service spending. If we take away the social services element—it is being redefined as NHS spending, which it was not previously—and look at core NHS spending, it will fall by 0.5%. The IFS described that as the “worst settlement since 1951”. Again, those people using the health service are the most vulnerable and they will bear the brunt.
There will be local government reductions, in particular for support to the voluntary sector. For example, several welfare advice centres in my constituency will no longer be able to offer help and support to the very poorest in society because of the implementation of legal aid cuts. People will be left to fend for themselves, with far less advice—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering away, but she will get her opportunity to speak in a moment. I hope that she can give those people an explanation of the deficit reduction choices that she is making that deliberately addresses the speed of her measures. I understand that everyone in the House wants to ensure that deficit reduction is carried out sensitively, but I cannot quite understand the voracious speed at which the Minister thinks she has to do that. Her approach seems punitive and potentially risky.
There are education changes, too, and we have also talked about policing and crime. Those who tend to need the support of the policing services are those who are the victims of crime, and most of all the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The list goes on: reductions in the working neighbourhoods fund; no more future jobs fund; and, again, some of the welfare advice changes. Those things give rise to more worries and concerns.
The IFS was right to point out the regressive nature of the Budget. All the spin and warm words that the Minister will no doubt parrot again have been unravelled by the objective and independent analysis carried out by the institute, which the Conservatives were more than happy to cite in times past, but now seem keen to rubbish. The IFS says that the cuts are the
“deepest since the second world war”.
The Government have decided to hit families with children hardest, with the health in pregnancy grant going, the taxing and freezing of child benefit, the cuts to child care help through the working tax credit, and the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance. It is not necessarily those individual changes, but the compounding effect of them all happening simultaneously, with the speed of implementation chosen by the Minister, that makes them hit the most vulnerable very hard.
It was right that the hon. Member for St Ives raised the question of whether those with the broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden. The Chancellor keeps saying, “We’re all in this together,” but that is completely unbelievable and palpably not the case.
The puny nature of the banking levy is such that even the International Monetary Fund has said that it is a third of the size that it suggested. The banks will enjoy the corporation tax cuts, as well as their deferred tax benefits. There is also, of course, complete inaction by the Government on banker bonuses, which will be revealed when the bonus season starts in January or February.
All in all, the set of changes is exceptionally regressive and will hit the most vulnerable in society most of all. Perhaps the saddest fact is that many of those who will be affected do not yet realise it. The changes have not necessarily been reported in detail. People might well be completely oblivious to the changes that are coming but, for example, when the housing benefit change comes in on 1 October next year, they will be faced with great difficulties.
I have urged my local authority in Nottingham to find a way of communicating with recipients of housing benefit so that they can prepare themselves for the changes that are coming. Will the Minister at the very least—even if we disagree about the speed and nature of the policies—tell hon. Members how the Government intend to communicate with people and give them a bit of a heads-up so that they can prepare themselves for some of the changes? With a little preparation, the poorest in society might be able to try their best to brace themselves for what is around the corner.
I have set out my genuine concerns. There are political differences between us, but the story is a sad one that will unravel further in the years to come.
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman raises one of the key flaws that has existed in the welfare system, which is that it has trapped people. Going back to my time on the Work and Pensions Committee, I remember an inquiry that we did into Jobcentre Plus. The then Government had to introduce a better-off test to prove to people that they were better off going into work, because it was so complicated to work out what benefits people were receiving and what they would lose. It was not clear to people that moving into work would be the best thing for them financially.
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to read the White Paper that the Department for Work and Pensions will release in the next few days on the universal credit, which is intended absolutely to make sure that people who are currently on benefits know that they will be better off if they move back into work. We can move away from the situation faced by some of the worst-off people in our country, who have moved into work only to be penalised with some of the highest marginal rates of tax, which are simply eye-watering. We would not dream of putting even the highest earners on such rates, but the marginal rates of tax faced by some of the lowest-income people have been huge, and the universal credit is aimed at starting to tackle that situation.
Chris Leslie
For the benefit of hon. Members, will the Minister tell us what the marginal rate of tax will be for families that lose child benefit when they earn more than a certain amount? What will the percentage be? As I understand it, earning £1 could result in £2,000 of lost child benefit.
Justine Greening
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to consider those calculations in detail, but that brings us back to my concern about the Opposition’s engagement with the subject, which was typified by his intervention. Unfortunately, it was not at all constructive but deeply negative. At the heart of my concern about the Opposition’s lack of thoughtful strategy is the fact that he argues for a policy that would maintain child benefit for higher rate taxpayers.
Justine Greening
No; I want to make some progress.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East could have set out some better alternatives, but he failed to do so. That is a shame for our democracy. I assure him that we are tackling problems in the welfare system that the previous Government failed to tackle; I had hoped that he would welcome that. I know that the Opposition agree with some of our welfare reforms; it would help if we knew which ones, as we could then have a genuine political debate about areas of disagreement.
The universal credit will be a big step forward, and a good one. It will ensure that people are no longer trapped in welfare, as they have been. The hon. Member for St Ives said that one of our achievements as a coalition Government was to re-establish the earnings link. He is right; against the backdrop of a difficult fiscal deficit, we have maintained pensioner benefits on things such as free eye tests, free prescriptions, the free bus pass and free TV licences for the over-75s. We have also increased the cold weather payment award permanently to £25.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned social care. Again, it is symptomatic of what we have in mind that we must protect the most vulnerable. That is why we have added £2 billion to the social care bill, with £1 billion from the NHS and £1 billion from the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government. That is precisely to ensure that local authorities do not need to restrict access to social care. The fact that the money comes from the NHS and the Department shows that we need them to work more closely together. The reality is that health and social care are inextricably linked. Indeed, good social care can protect the vulnerable and help them maintain a healthy and independent life. As MPs, we have all seen people in our surgeries who are very keen to do that, and we have all worked to help people maintain the independence that so many want. We have therefore been particularly careful to ensure that funding for social care is supported.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s important comments on housing benefit. In the changes that we made to housing benefit, we tried to ensure that we tackle the underpinning of affordable housing and the lack of new affordable housing. One reason why housing has become so expensive is the gap between demand and supply, and the fact that housing starts over the last 10 years have generally been lower than in the past. That was so particularly for social housing, and especially for affordable homes in places such as London.
That is the backdrop and the key reason why rents have risen and housing has generally become more expensive. The previous model of affordable housing did not work. If Government money had been thrown at it during an economic boom, we would have seen the sorts of affordable housing that were needed, but it did not happen. We therefore had to think of different ways to do it. We are working far more effectively with housing associations and other investors that want to create housing, to ensure that we get back to creating the levels of social housing and affordable housing that are needed. That means investment—£4.5 billion for new affordable homes and £2 billion for the decent homes programme. We also need a more flexible system of affordable housing to help those who need to move for work and to protect the most vulnerable, and one that is also fair to the taxpayer.
Finance (No.2) Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
(Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 would force the Treasury to come clean on its plans to withdraw child benefit from families with higher-rate taxpayers from January 2013, which will take £2.5 billion a year from those families from 2014-15 onwards.
Ever since the Chancellor announced the policy of means-testing child benefit a month ago at the Conservative party conference, the policy has gradually unravelled. The Treasury has struggled to spell out exactly how it will implement the idea—especially as there has rightly been separate and independent taxation of individuals since 1990, when it was recognised that there were major problems with taxing women as though their income were effectively part of their husbands’ property. Those days may seem long ago now—it is 20 years since Lady Thatcher left Downing street, and 20 years since Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism—but the Government have adopted a déjà-vu approach to policy making which looks set to reopen that history.
We have grown used to the principle of independent taxation over the past two decades, and many now take it for granted, but we ought to pause and reflect on why it is so important. The Government’s proposed changes to child benefit imply a requirement for mothers to disclose their receipt of child benefit to their partners, and a requirement for partners or husbands to be taxed on the income of their spouses. That represents a potential breach of the principle of separate and individual taxation which, as the new clause says, was introduced in the Finance Act 1988, and which applied from 1990 onwards.
The 1988 Act introduced a radical change in the system of taxing husbands and wives: independent taxation. Until then, husbands and wives were viewed as one person for tax purposes, and the Revenue, of course, saw only the husband. The spouse’s income and gains were added together, and the couple were treated as if the total income were that of the husband. He was responsible for completing the annual tax return and for paying all tax due, including that on his wife’s income and gains. However, with the introduction of independent taxation, spouses were treated as separate individuals for tax purposes and for the first time married women enjoyed privacy in, and responsibility for, their own tax affairs. In addition, some married couples were paying more tax because they were married than they would have if they had been cohabiting. That drew much criticism at the time.
It is instructive to look back at the speeches advocating the virtues of independent taxation, especially by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has since been ennobled as Lord Lamont. In the 1988 Budget debate he called this reform
“a radical proposal for independent taxation…It will give married women the independence and privacy in tax matters that they have been denied for so long…Under the new system, a married woman will be treated as a taxpayer in her own right with a full personal allowance to set against her income, and her own basic rate band. She will have responsibility for her own tax matters and will be able to enjoy complete privacy if she wishes…It is an important principle that there should be independence and privacy in taxation matters.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1193-94.]
Clearly the Prime Minister should heed the words of his former boss in these matters. I gather that Lord Lamont is still occasionally called upon to give advice to his former special adviser. Perhaps their diaries clashed on the day of the fateful decision on child benefit, but there is still time for the Prime Minister to make that call to Lord Lamont, and to see the error of his ways and rein in his doctrinaire Chancellor on this issue, especially as the Prime Minister promised before the general election to protect child benefit. Winding the clock back 20 years and reversing decades of progress in equality in taxation and in the responsibilities of individuals for their own income risks creating a set of major perversities in the tax system that could have significant ramifications. That is why the Opposition are opposed to the changes in child benefit.
Let us consider the administrative shambles that would be created if the Government were to get their way. The Wall Street Journal has reported insiders in the civil service talking of “panic stations” at the Treasury with growing acceptance that the policy is virtually “unenforceable” and “likely to be ditched”. If a mother is under no legal obligation to tell the father that she is in receipt of child benefit—unless we do see the end of independent taxation, of course—how can this tax on families work? Currently, the father’s tax status is irrelevant to the mother’s entitlement to child benefit. Can the Minister tell the House how this clawback arrangement will work, especially if parents are divorced or divorcing or separated or separating, or if the mother simply declines to report the tax status of the father of her children to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs officials?
Can the Minister also tell us whether the rumour that the Treasury is considering a new database to match mothers with their partners is true, and would that not make the Child Support Agency seem a bit like a pocket calculator by comparison? Will the Minister spell out the mechanisms the Treasury envisages in respect of this policy, and the enforcement mechanisms it is planning to put in place to take these sums off families earning approximately £45,000 or above? Will the Treasury be relying on a self-certification approach by the partner not in receipt of child benefit? Will the Minister take this opportunity to state for the record that the Government will continue with the important principle that mothers should be the primary recipient of child benefit payments?
The poor design of this policy could easily undermine revenue plans too. Clawing back the cost of the benefit from higher rate taxpayers through the tax system would be “intrusive” and involve lots of form filling. That is the opinion of one of the Chancellor’s own advisers on tax policy, John Whiting, whom the Chancellor recently appointed as the tax director of the Office of Tax Simplification. Mr Whiting suggests that the policy would be an administrative burden that would merely “make a dent” in the estimated £2.5 billion of savings the Treasury claims the change would bring. We are not alone in questioning the logic of this ill-thought-through proposal, therefore. We know from the reporting on this policy that the Chancellor rode roughshod over his Cabinet colleagues when it was announced at the Conservative party conference. Clearly many in the Cabinet were oblivious to those plans when the Chancellor sprung them on them, but it is now clear that he also rode roughshod over those in the civil service. They were insufficiently included in the plans for this policy and had he consulted them properly, they would have pointed out the chaos that it would create.
These are serious matters affecting millions of families across the UK, not only millionaires such as the Chancellor’s family or the Prime Minister’s family, but those on relatively modest incomes. They include police officers, college tutors, health service workers, senior teachers, pharmacists, paramedics, train drivers and air traffic controllers. Many are caught up in this category, the arbitrary design of which will create great unfairness with punitively high marginal rates of taxation.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman seems to want to convince the House that £45,000 a year is not very much money, but he should tell that to my constituents, whose average annual earnings are less than £20,000; that is what the average job pays in Dover and that is the norm in many parts of this country outside London. My constituents look askance at the fact that people on £45,000, a sum of earnings that they aspire to and dream of having, receive benefits. They tell me on the doorstep that they think that that is wrong, in principle, and that this measure is the right one to take.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is doing his job, supporting a policy that was not the one espoused in his party’s manifesto. It certainly was not the policy that the Prime Minister advocated before the election when he promised to protect universal child benefit—he now says that it should be taken away from these “rich” individuals, but I do not agree. I do not believe that this class of middle-income families is necessarily finding life easy on this particular range of salaries. We have to speak up for that squeezed middle in society and that is absolutely what the Opposition intend to do. Where a policy could see a £1 pay rise for these families result in the loss of £2,000 in child benefit, depending on the number of children involved, it involves a punitively high rate of marginal taxation that surely even Members on the Government Benches would agree is flawed.
At last week’s Treasury Committee sitting, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Mike Brewer, described these cliff-edge issues as “economically perverse” and “distorting”. He also said that it “seems unfair” that two families in different circumstances but perhaps separated by very small sums should be “treated so differently”. His colleague, Carl Emmerson, added:
“The income tax system, by being individually based, is basically neutral about whether individuals”
should be taxed separately or together and that that is an “advantage” in the tax system.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has rightly asked,
“why should a family on £45,000 where one person stays at home lose their child benefit—£1,000, 2,000, £3,000 a year—but a family on £80,000 where both partners… are working should keep their child benefit?”—[Official Report, 13 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 322-23.]
Even the Treasury has, begrudgingly, had to publish some statistics showing that this policy would create all sorts of anomalies and odd behaviour. It published a figure in the Budget suggesting that it expected to lose £270 million each year in revenue from people tax planning as they navigated this madness.
A family with three children on £33,000 a year after tax is to lose £2,500 from 2013—that is the equivalent of a 6p in the pound hike in their income tax. Middle-class families are being hit, and it is particularly pernicious of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to focus on children in this way as a means of raising money—they are clubbing families over the head with a higher tax burden while, of course, letting the banks off the hook. At the very least the Treasury should accept the new clause and agree to publish an independent review of the consequences for independent taxation if its plans for child benefit taxation of higher rate paying family members are to proceed.
Mr Gauke
The policy underlines the fact that the Government are looking to address our deficit in a way that is fair, and to ensure that all parts of society play their part and those with the broadest shoulders make the biggest contribution. That is what we are doing. It is remarkable that it is Opposition Members who appear to be trying to prevent that happening, though I am not sure whether they object to the way in which it is being done or whether they intend to fight in the last ditch to defend the principle of universality as it applies to child benefit.
We wanted to avoid creating a complex new means test for household income. To do so would fundamentally change the nature of child benefit and come at a significant cost to the taxpayer. This policy has therefore been designed to avoid affecting the vast majority of the population—some 80%—who are basic rate taxpayers. It also avoids additional systems being developed, as the measure can be delivered within existing pay-as-you-earn and self-assessment systems.
Let me deal with the issue behind the new clause—the principle of independent taxation, which was introduced in the Finance Act 1988. It is a great pleasure to hear Opposition Members applauding the 1988 Budget. If I remember rightly, proceedings in this place at the time were interrupted as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was shouted down by some Opposition Members. Section 32 abolished the provision that a wife’s income was income of her husband for income tax purposes. That remains the case, and none of the proposed changes to child benefit alters it.
Child benefit is provided for a child within a family and it is therefore necessary to consider the family as a group. The policy merely withdraws child benefit from a family to whom it is difficult to justify paying it. Furthermore, the withdrawal of child benefit from families containing a higher rate taxpayer will not affect the personal allowance or rate band applicable to an individual. The changes apply a simple test to ensure that child benefit is not provided to those who need it the least.
Of course, the House will have the full opportunity to debate the changes to child benefit when they are legislated, ahead of implementation in January 2013. That would be a better time to discuss the various specific issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. Although I understand that Opposition Members may wish to draw a link between child benefit and independent taxation in order to have this debate today, it is clear that the two systems remain separate and independent.
Chris Leslie
I am trying to follow the Minister’s logic. Does HMRC envisage child benefit continuing to be paid to all mothers, but that higher rate taxpayers will have a sum equivalent to child benefit deducted from their income, on top of taxes?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman, who has been somewhat ingenious in tabling the new clause, again seeks to draw me into a wider debate about the implementation of child benefit. He sets out one way in which it could work; in other circumstances, claimants might seek to stop receiving child benefit. However, I must stress that, although he has been somewhat ingenious in raising the issue in the context of the Finance (No.2) Bill, the new clause has nothing to do with independent taxation, so I ask him to withdraw it.
Chris Leslie
I am astonished by the Minister’s blinkered approach in sticking to the robotic text, “This has absolutely nothing to do with independent taxation,” when it patently does. If a higher rate taxpayer is being asked to pay for income that their partner or spouse receives, that clearly breaches the principle of independent taxation. The hon. Gentleman would not be drawn into the mechanism by which the scheme would be set up, but, given the great fanfare with which the policy was announced at the Conservative party conference, I would have thought that by now the panic stations at the Treasury might surely have subsided, and that he would be able to share with the House exactly how the measure would work.
Geraint Davies
In my constituency, my hon. Friend’s constituency and throughout the country, there are women who do not earn any money but live in a household with a partner, receive child benefit and spend the money on their children. In the light of their uncertainty about the future, given what we all know about the divorce rates, those women are critically concerned that the hand of government will suddenly come in and snatch that money from them or their children because of what the man earns. The Bill is clearly an infringement of independent taxation and an attack on children and mothers.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend highlights the fact that I cannot see this being the end of the matter. The Minister suggests that the measure is part of the Government’s carefully calculated spending commitments, but I do not think that they will continue with the plan. There are so many anomalies and problems in its design and operation that they clearly did not think it through properly. They might have looked at the ready reckoner, saying “Oh yes” as they licked their lips at the £2.5 billion that they could take from families, and went straight to the first day of the Conservative party conference to announce their proposal, but it is unravelling by the moment.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others are starting to highlight the economic perversities and distorting effect of this measure. Even the sole issue of independent taxation is sufficient to hole below the waterline the Government’s plans to tax child benefit. I therefore hope that we can divide the House on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chris Leslie
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a short new clause, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). It might be naive of me to expect that the promises made by the Prime Minister in opposition still hold good today, but this debate is necessary because of his rhetoric then, when he said that
“there should be a day of reckoning”
for the banks—
“A day when we would not flinch from spelling out the rightful consequences of irresponsible behaviour…this is a question of fairness…on behalf of working families”.
He continued:
“we show clearly that…there is not one rule for the rich and a different rule for everybody else.”
Those are the words of the Prime Minister—before the last general election, of course. Time has moved on, the ministerial cars have become very comfortable, but the Treasury has barely lifted a finger to fulfil the promises to reform the tax regime in which the major banks operate. Perhaps that is a convenient state of affairs for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as they desperately try to shift attention from the banks’ culpability for the state we are in, but there is still an urgent need to take stock of their contribution to repairing the public purse and to see decisions taken that might help to alleviate the looming crisis of public service redundancies and cutbacks.
The Chancellor’s spending review, to which the Opposition obviously take great exception, is based on the pretext that “There is no alternative”. In other words, anyone who even dares to murmur that there is any other course of action is somehow using flawed, unreasonable or unrealistic logic. That not only insults the intelligence of the public at large, but is profoundly short-sighted, as there are a great many alternative strategies that the Government should be considering. However, they insist that there is no plan B.
The new clause would shed further light on the facts behind the claim that there are no alternative revenues that could alleviate the burden of service and welfare cuts, which will fall heaviest, as we know, on middle-income families and some of the poorest adults and children in this country. We surely owe it to those people—our constituents—to try harder to find ways to close the tax gap, to create growth and new jobs, to generate new income and to bear down on the tax avoidance that costs billions of pounds each year.
Let us remember why we have the budget deficit. Contrary to the spinology that we will no doubt get from Government Members, who are obviously desperate to politicise the deficit in the hope of providing cover for their ideological scaling-back of public investment, our national debt was caused primarily not by a spending spree, as they claim, but by a dramatic collapse in revenues to the Treasury from income tax, VAT and corporation tax as a result of the global credit crunch and recession. The £132 billion rise in the deficit in the last financial year was, yes, partly the result of £53 billion in extra social protection expenditure, which was necessary, for example, for unemployment benefits. More importantly, however, there was the £79 billion decrease in revenues. It is that collapse in revenues, which was compounded by the need to spend billions shoring up the banking system and preventing its collapse, that the Conservative party consistently and mysteriously want to overlook.
Let us remind ourselves of the banking bail-out, because significant sums were spent, and had to be spent, on it. Those sums included £76 billion to purchase shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, £200 billion to indemnify the Bank of England against losses occurred in providing liquidity support, £250 billion to guarantee banks’ wholesale borrowing and strengthen liquidity in the banking system, £40 billion to provide loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and £280 billion agreed in principle to provide insurance for a selection of banking assets. All in all, it was the credit crunch, as we know, that led to the banking crisis and the recession. It is those things, not the public service inflation on which the Conservative party is completely fixated, that were the underpinning factors fuelling the deficit.
The banks owe taxpayers a massive debt of gratitude—that much is clear. They would have gone bust were it not for the deficit facility that we are now grappling with. My constituents are therefore repeatedly asking one simple question: will the banks be made to pay their fair share, getting us out of the deficit that they helped to create because of their business mistakes? Before the election, the Prime Minister gave every impression that that would be so, but so far very little action has been taken.
I do not want to penalise the banking sector to the point of annihilation; nobody wants our economy’s financial services sector to fail further. Indeed, it should be resurrected in a more sustainable, diverse and healthy form for the future. However, when the Government are raising VAT on the rest of us, cutting police budgets, for example, by 20%, severely squeezing students and those on housing benefit, and forcing the closure of fire services, libraries and community services—the list goes on and on—we should surely examine more closely the level of taxation that the banks are paying. That is the point of new clause 3.
Stewart Hosie
This is interesting. I have seen many of these quotes before, and I am certainly minded to support the new clause, if the hon. Gentleman pushes it to a vote. An examination of the level of tax on banking is sensible, but I would like to know what the Labour party proposes for the level of taxation, given that every billion out of the banks is about £10 million to £15 million less to lend in the real economy. I am curious, therefore, to find out how punitive the Labour party would be.
Chris Leslie
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. We have to be prudent in how we address these questions, and I hope to come to some of the matters he raises as we explore corporation tax and so on. If he bears with me, I will—hopefully—elaborate.
UBS analysts said that they expected Lloyds and HSBC to benefit by 2012 because of the cut in corporation tax bills, which in their case was larger than the hit they expected to be sustained through the banking levy. It seems, therefore, that the banking levy is playing quite a small part, perhaps a walk-on character—
Chris Leslie
A walk-on character with very few lines—unlike the hon. Gentleman, to whom I give way.
Charlie Elphicke
I would like to put a couple of points to the hon. Gentleman. First, taking the case of Lloyds and RBS, are there not likely to be substantial carry-forward losses in those banks, which will not be paying corporation tax for many years to come, let alone by 2012? Secondly, were they then to face a higher rate of tax, which I believe he is proposing, would the cost on those banks not result in the devaluation of their shares, which are now owned by the public? Surely, it would go round in a circle.
Chris Leslie
I will come to deferred tax in a moment, because the corporation tax questions require much greater scrutiny. That is one reason we tabled the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby, should we divide on this issue—unless the Treasury concede it—and that he agrees that we should have a review of the level of tax the banks are paying. If they are paying too much, which I doubt, I will be happy to look at the evidence and the facts. However, there is opacity about these questions, and given the hit falling on the shoulders of families and children in this country, it is incumbent on us to ask whether the banks will be paying their fair share. That is all we are asking this evening.
We think that the Government’s banking levy has been a limp effort so far. Given some of the corporation tax changes, there is a bit of a cashback arrangement for some of the banks. I would like to touch on three areas of corporation tax that I think require more serious and rigorous review. The first is that cashback boost for the banks resulting from the reduction in corporation tax rates announced in the Budget. The Exchequer Secretary confirmed in a written answer that over the lifetime of the spending review the Treasury expects that the cut in corporation tax main rate from 28% to 27%, and eventually down to 24%, will return £1 billion to the banks—specifically to the banks:
“£0.1 billion in 2011-12, £0.2 billion in 2012-13, £0.3 billion in 2013-14 and £0.4 billion in 2014-15.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 610W.]
Mr Gauke
It is dangerous to intervene given that I do not have the answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in front of me, but my recollection is that the answer to that parliamentary question was in the context of financial services companies as a whole, including insurance firms, not specifically banks.
Chris Leslie
It might well be that in that written answer the Exchequer Secretary’s definition of “financial services” extends slightly beyond the banks. I am happy to concede that point. Of course, we framed the new clause in order to explore the tax burden not just on the banks but on financial services more widely. However, even the hon. Gentleman would have to concede that the banks will probably be the principal beneficiaries of the corporation tax cut that he is choosing to give them at a time when he is taking money from young, pregnant mothers—the health in pregnancy grant, to name one example of an incongruous decision that might be questioned by our constituents.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
I can see that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused about the written answer, so I want to clarify it for him, as I have a copy of it. The figures he gave relate to “financial sector” companies, so does he accept that he got his figures wrong when he said he was talking specifically about the banks?
Chris Leslie
The hon. Lady has several thousand civil servants—for the time being, at least, before they are made redundant—in the Treasury to help her with the costings for such questions. I can only go with the facts published in Hansard. Perhaps she could save me the trouble of tabling a further written question to find out what the bank cashback arrangement will be on corporation tax. I will give way to her if she has to hand the precise figures on what the UK banks will be gaining from the corporation tax cut. Can she tell us what those figures are? If not, I will table a written question. If she can swiftly answer that, it will be for the benefit of the House. I am pretty sure that it will be a net gain for the banks.
Mr Gauke
Let me deal with this directly. The Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures that we have look at hits by sector—in this case, the financial services sector, which includes not only banking but insurance and financial auxiliary services. The hon. Gentleman quoted his figures and suggested that they represent a net gain. In fact, by the time we get to 2014-15, the bank levy will be £2.4 billion. At the same time, the corporation tax cuts in 2014-15 will benefit the financial services sector by £0.4 billion. However we divide £0.4 billion, it is hard to see how it will ever be higher than £2.4 billion.
Chris Leslie
Were those the only two relevant factors, that might be the case, but of course they are not. There are other tax changes through which the banks will more than benefit from the arrangements. If the Exchequer Secretary had had the patience to wait, I would have elaborated on that. I will come to that quicker.
It is important that the Exchequer Secretary listens to those experts who have talked about the benefit to the banks from the corporation tax change. Lloyds Banking Group plc could gain more from a cut in corporation tax than it loses under the new banking levy, according to analysts at Redburn Partners legal practice. Lloyds, 41% of which is owned by the British Government, might see a 3% rise in its earnings per share in 2012 as corporation tax begins to fall to 24% from 28% over those four years, according to Redburn analyst, Jon Kirk. There will therefore be a net positive for Lloyds. That is one example of a net gain for the banks.
Secondly, the banks have already found a way of minimising their corporation tax liabilities. A report published only last week by the TUC on the corporation tax gap showed a gap between the headline rate of corporation tax paid and the actual or effective rate of corporation tax paid. The TUC’s analysis of data on UK corporate returns showed that the larger a company is, the better it tends to be at reducing its effective rate of corporation tax, which fell from 28% in 2000, when the headline rate was 30%, to about 23% in 2009, when the headline rate was 28%. On that basis, the TUC’s economists predict that by 2014, the largest companies will be paying corporation tax at a rate of no more than 17% on average, while small companies will still be paying corporation tax at 20% or more.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are all sorts of reasons why the headline rate of corporation tax may not reflect the rate of corporation tax that is actually paid, which are to do with credits for R and D, and all sorts of things. He keeps quoting what the TUC report says about larger companies, but what does it say about the banking sector?
Chris Leslie
The TUC says that the effective rate of corporation tax for the banks will fall from 25% in 2000 to below 20% this year, which means that, in reality, they are already paying a rate that is below the headline rate that small firms pay. Those findings are certainly eye-catching. All I am saying in new clause 3 is that they merit further review and consideration, which would be a reasonable step to take. Indeed, those findings suggest that we could even be heading towards a regressive corporation tax system in the UK. Small businesses should be paying less in corporation tax than the banks, but the evidence suggests that that might not be the case.
The third wheeze that the banks might benefit from, in their navigation of the corporation tax system, is known as deferred tax, which can be defined as the tax liability that might be payable at some point in the future because of transactions that have already taken place, albeit where there is no certainty about when it will have to be paid. Deferring the payment of tax is not something that ordinary taxpayers can indulge in with great ease, yet it appears that the banks are playing that game on a gargantuan scale, according to the findings of Richard Murphy, the director of Tax Research LLP. He suggests in his recent report that the banks’ deferral of tax reserves are absolutely phenomenal. He calculates that a sum totalling nearly £19 billion, which is nearly half what this country spends on capital projects annually, might not be paid by the banks in corporation tax as a result. He describes that as
“an extraordinary double subsidy going on for these banks.”
Not only were the banks underpinned by the taxpayer in 2008—they are still underpinned in the form of the guarantees offered by the Treasury—but they may receive another fillip, he argues, from that deferred corporation tax gain.
Stewart Hosie
Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, at least one of the nationalised banks used those unused or deferred tax assets to pay for the asset protection scheme, which was set up—rightly—by the Labour Government in the previous Parliament. Without those unused tax assets or that deferred tax, the asset protection scheme would not have been possible, thereby imposing an even bigger burden on the banks, so I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman is going with this.
Chris Leslie
I am not making any particular proposals at this point; I am simply saying in new clause 3 that we should review the level of tax that banks are paying. There may be perfectly good and justified reasons for it, but we are talking about enormous sums of money. If, as some allege, the banks are playing a canny game, with sums of money that might have prevented many of the swingeing cuts that we are seeing to public services, it is incumbent on us, on behalf of our constituents, to ask those questions. If we are indeed “all in it together”, as we are constantly told, we should ensure that the banks pay their fair share and do not leave the rest of us picking up all the bills.
Chris Leslie
Absolutely, and it is no coincidence that it is on the first page of promises in the coalition agreement—actually, the reason is alphabetical; the first page starts with b, for “banking”—that many of those promises, including the promise to tackle banker bonuses, were made. The Government have tried to suggest that they are being tough and that they will take action, but that action has not been forthcoming. I want to hear from the Minister whether the Government are now content with the current framework, in which higher banker bonuses look set to continue to be paid. If not, will he say when the Government will bring forward proposals to act? It is a specific and simple question. The House wants to hear what the Minister has to say.
The coalition agreement also promised to use net lending targets for the nationalised banks as a means of getting credit flowing to businesses, as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has suggested. Yet last week, the Prime Minister again shifted his stance. In a meeting with business leaders in Hertfordshire, he stepped back from that pledge, and indicated that lending targets for banks would not be reintroduced. He said:
“You can go for lending agreements with the banks. The trouble is, what I find with lending agreements is that they will promise to do a certain amount of lending to one sector, but they’ll shrink it somewhere else.”
His comments were followed by similar remarks from the Minister with responsibility for small businesses at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). Last Monday, the Government published their response to the Green Paper consultation on financing the economic recovery, and it was conspicuous by its absence that no mention was made of net lending targets. Have the Government softened their position on the pursuit of net lending targets to business?
During the summer, the Chancellor said that he would be exploring the costs and benefits of a financial activities tax on profits and remuneration. He repeatedly said that he would consider such a levy on the total profits and remuneration of financial institutions rather than on individual transactions, and the European Commission backed the financial activities tax, but when it was brought forward for discussion at the EU Council summit on 28 September, Ministers seemed to be rowing back from even that pledge. Will the Minister tell the House where the Government stand on the proposal for a financial activities tax? The rumour was that the Government did not want that idea going forward to the G20 summit in Seoul this coming weekend. If so, why?
Many of our constituents will be aware of the proposal from 50 or so charities and other voluntary bodies for a financial transactions tax, which is slightly different from a financial activities tax, and would apply to a wide range of individual capital movements, including equities, bonds and derivatives. That Tobin tax or Robin Hood tax deserves a thorough review, although clearly there are arguments for and against with regard to the details and the relative impact on London as a centre for financial transactions. Nevertheless, the Government have singularly failed to respond to that campaign so far. Any review of banking taxation would need to analyse the case for a financial transactions tax far more rigorously as it is a serious proposition meriting a serious response. All in all, the banks’ tax position needs a far more serious review than the piecemeal commitments offered by Ministers so far.
Justine Greening
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Labour party supports a financial transactions tax?
Chris Leslie
We want to review it. Does the hon. Lady? Is she interested in looking at the proposition, or is she ruling it out completely?
Justine Greening
I note that the hon. Gentleman failed to answer my question. I will respond to him broadly when I have heard the rest of the debate, and when I have a chance to respond to his new clause.
Chris Leslie
I thought it was a simple question. I thought the whole point of a debate was to exchange views. I am happy to review the financial transactions tax. It is an important proposition, and it deserves serious consideration. The Minister does not seem to know whether she is allowed to review it. Perhaps some inspiration has come down from on high. There is scurrying around, and I see that the Chancellor has been paging her officials. I am sure that inspiration will come to her shortly.
Will the Minister say whether there should be a change in tax policy to rectify some of the loopholes, such as those in corporation tax? Should there be a further review of, for example, the bank payroll tax? Should banks have their right to carry tax losses forward limited so that they expire after a specific time, or would that be detrimental? Clearly, the Government’s feeble attempt to recoup something from the banks through the banking levy alone is barely denting their balance sheets and is dwarfed by, for example, the deferred tax assets that the banks are wielding according to the report.
Ministers should concede that the whole matter needs clearing up urgently if they are to have any hope of preventing widespread public cynicism, discontent and anger. In short, as things stand, all we see from the Government is a puny banking levy, banks still using corporation tax loopholes at taxpayers’ expense, promises on bankers’ bonuses unfulfilled, promises on banks’ net lending targets more distant than ever, and inaction on reforms to the banking taxation system. The taxpayers of this country deserve better.
Chris Evans
Since coming to the House, I have seen a lot of history being rewritten. We are told whenever we stand in the Chamber that we must apologise for the economy, but to coin a phrase from The Sun on the day after the general election in 1992, “It was the banks wot did it.” There is widespread public anger with the banks, and people believe that they are getting away scot-free.
At my surgeries, in my local Labour party and out in the streets, people ask me why our nurses and teachers are bearing the brunt of the deficit—what about those casino bankers? If it were not for their reckless practices, why did the then shadow Chancellor just before the general election commit to follow Labour’s spending plans for two years if we were so bad at running the economy? The simple fact is that the banks have not paid the price for the deficit that they helped to run up.
The new clause is not about destroying the banking system; it is about strengthening it, which means changing it and making it mixed. I know that this is outwith the amendment, but I would like a mutual element in the banking system, and that could start with Northern Rock. The simple fact is that the banks received £1 trillion. Can anyone imagine what £1 trillion looks like? Can anyone imagine what public works we could do with £1 trillion? Projects in my constituency are crying out for money. The Newbridge Memo, the memorial hall, needs restoration. So much could be done with a tiny part of that £1 trillion. But the bankers remain blasé and people think they are plain arrogant.
If no one believes me, let them look at Lloyds TSB, which this week appointed a chief executive. I will not embarrass myself by trying to pronounce his Spanish name, but we are told he will receive a package of £8 million. Who is worth £8 million, and what message does that send to people who are struggling to get by? It sends the message that the Government do not care how much damage bankers have done—they can carry on as they have been. When we read about such figures, what are we saying to people on the ground? They are the ones who must pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talked about bankers’ bonuses, and I wholeheartedly agree that something must be done to rein them in. However, I have been a high street banker. I worked for Lloyds TSB, and I know for a fact that someone working as a personal account manager or personal banker is desperate for their bonus at the end of the month, because it makes up their wage. If we rein in the big City bonuses, we must think about the people on the ground. Let us not rein in their bonuses. They still have to pay their bills, and we must think about that. I ask the Government to consider the new clause because the banks really must pay their fair share.
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman is right that the bank levy itself needs to be viewed in the context of overall policy. He is right that it is not just about the bank levy; we have to look at it in the light of the broader changes around regulatory reform and the work of the Independent Commission on Banking. I will shortly come on to explain what that means for new clause 3.
We know that we have to tackle the regulatory failures of the past. We also know that it is right that banks make a contribution in respect of the risks they pose to the UK economy, but there is no benefit in taking action that would simply drive banks abroad. As the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) pointed out, hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK depend on Britain being competitive in this industry. For the financial services sector as a whole, as of June 2009, it had 1 million employees. The jobs are not just in London and the south-east, as there are nearly 100,000 people employed within the financial services industry in the north-west, while there are between 69,000 and 70,000 people employed by that industry in the east of England and about 90,000 in Scotland. Although there have been serious failures in the past, we also have to remember that many of the jobs that are part of this overall sector do not bring in high incomes, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
Chris Leslie
I am following the hon. Lady’s logic. She is saying that we do not want to do anything that would drive the banks away—that old chestnut again—but is she seriously saying that the proposal in the new clause to have a review of the level of taxation would be enough to frighten them all offshore? Is she really saying that?
Justine Greening
The IMF has expressed its own views around levels of taxation. In the broader international context, which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) mentioned, there are questions about the introduction of a financial transaction tax and a financial activities tax. Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s party, we were prepared to introduce a bank levy nationally, but there are also discussions taking place about international measures that might be taken.
In fact, over and above the bank levy, the Government are taking a tougher approach to tackling tax avoidance by the banks. Prior to the spending review, only four of the top 15 banks had adopted the previous Government’s code of practice. We have asked Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work with banks to make sure they adopt and implement the code by the end of this month, thereby making the commitment to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law, and not to engage in or promote tax avoidance.
New clause 3 provides:
“The Treasury shall publish a report before the 2011 Budget examining the level of taxation on the banking and financial services industry.”
We have had some sort of rationale for it, but I have to say that I see little merit in making such a report in isolation. The report itself would be no substitute for the overall strategy for improved regulation and the complementary bank levy ensuring banks make a contribution in respect of the risk they pose to the financial system and wider economy. As set out in the spending review, the Government will continue to monitor tax receipts from the banking sector to ensure that banks make a fair and growing contribution to the public finances as the economy recovers.
In addition, there are, of course, already statistics available on the amount of tax revenue derived from the financial services sector. Historical figures for corporation tax receipts paid by several broadly defined business sectors are regularly updated and published on the HMRC national statistics website. To improve predictability, it is important that the Government provide clarity on the direction of tax policy, and the vehicle through which that is best delivered is the Budget itself. The new clause would require the Government to produce a superfluous report in advance of the Budget and therefore in advance of any announcements that the Chancellor might wish to make about tax policy generally that might impact on the banking and financial services industries.
The Opposition want a report on the banking industry. What the Government want, and what we have, is a strategy to ensure that the financial services sector pays its fair share. We have been clear about what we want to achieve, not only through the bank levy but through the code of practice, and by fixing the banks’ ineffective regulatory system—the system established by the last Government, who let our country down so badly. The new clause does nothing to support those aims, and I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East to withdraw it. If he is not willing to do so, an apology to the British people for the mess of a regulatory scheme that he left behind would not go amiss.
Chris Leslie
What cheek the Minister has to start claiming, in that revisionist way, that her party was always saying that it wanted heavier regulation of the banks in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the Labour party was always advocating the lightest of light touches.
The Minister has completely failed to address the substance of the new clause. We were not even arguing for a change of policy, although I think that we may deal with that on another occasion; we were simply asking for a review of the levels of tax paid by the banks. The Minister did not address that. Nor did she address the issue of bankability. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) rightly distinguished between lower-paid employees in the banking sector and the high-rolling, highly paid bonus recipients who are in a league of their own.
The Government have taken no action on banker bonuses, despite all their rhetoric. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) pointed out, although the Government had claimed earlier that they wanted to see the banks paying their fair share, they were quite happy to set the banking levy at a puny level. It was interesting to note that the Minister body-swerved the point about the IMF’s suggestion that the levy should be higher, and I think that we should examine that methodology on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) rightly observed that new clause 3 simply seeks transparency and accountability, which must be an important part of proving that we are genuinely all in it together, as the Government like to claim. The Government are going to hit the public generally, cutting services, abolishing education maintenance allowances, taxing child benefit and raising VAT; yet they are unable to do anything about the banks.
We accept that the Independent Commission on Banking is investigating the matter and that regulatory reform is needed, but why can we not have a review of the level of taxes? That is all that we are asking for. What are the Government scared of? They have not given us an answer, and I think that we should divide the House.
Chris Leslie
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 takes us into completely different territory from that of the previous debate, and it picks up on a discussion we had in Committee about the legal definition of incapacitated persons. Committee members were concerned by the outdated nature of some of our tax law, under which antiquated terminology can often still find its way into our tax regime through extracts from statutes simply being cut and pasted into today’s legislation.
One such anomaly concerns a definition in the Taxes Management Act 1970, which I am told is still very much a cornerstone of our tax law. It defines an “incapacitated person” as
“any infant, person of unsound mind, lunatic, idiot or insane person”.
Those terms of reference are clearly insulting and demeaning to people who would be regarded as incapacitated. Not only is it out of date for those terms of reference to be extant in our legislation, but it is hurtful to those individuals who may suffer from incapacitation to be categorised and described in such derogatory terms. That definition derives from the 19th-century lunacy Acts and today appears grotesquely at odds with modern terminology, and this insulting state of affairs ought to have been reformed many years ago. That definition relates to section 72 of the 1970 Act, which says that an incapacitated person’s tax liabilities should apply to their
“trustee, guardian, tutor, curator or committee”
as if to a non-incapacitated person.
In Committee, we pressed Ministers to concede this small and surely non-controversial reform. We did not feel that it was a matter of party politicking; after all, it should not be a dividing line between the parties. The new clause is simply and straightforwardly about replacing and modernising the definition of an “incapacitated person” and aligning it with the meaning in the more modern and more appropriate Mental Capacity Act 2005, whose far more flexible and sophisticated definition is less hurtful in tone and more precise in its interpretation. It states:
“For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”
That is a far more appropriate definition.
By updating the definition, we would also update provisions to encompass new arrangements relating to trusteeships. For example, the new arrangements would also modernise those of donees of powers of attorney, who would be properly included in the legal definitions, as well as those of Department for Work and Pensions appointees. I should like to thank the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group—LITRG—for highlighting the issue consistently. It has been championing this minor technical change in the law for at least seven years and has been promised on numerous occasions that, “A tax law rewrite is just around the corner”, “More time is needed for consultation” and so on. I gather that it has been having discussions with officials, following our discussion in Committee. Although LITRG may have cause to trust the Minister’s officials, I believe that time is running out for this change to be made. When the Minister was unable to concede on this point in Committee, I said that we would try to have this debate on the Floor of the House because of the importance and urgency of making this reform.
It is a pity that the Minister has not tabled a Government new clause on Report, but I shall wait to hear what he has to say. We did try to reflect on the points that he raised in Committee. The provision that we had tabled then did not refer specifically to children and we have rectified that by making the appropriate change for the Report stage. As far as I can see, this new clause has no revenue implications and there is no clear reason for any Member to dispute the need to modernise this terminology. There is clear evidence that people are hurt and insulted by the terminology from a bygone age. It therefore seemed sensible to put this point again on Report, and I urge the Minister to accept the new clause.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, new clause 5 seeks to change the definition in the Taxes Management Act 1970 of an “incapacitated person”. I appreciate that the purpose of the new clause is not to change the scope of the definition, but to ensure that it better reflects the modern understanding of an “incapacitated person”. Members of the Committee will recall that we debated a similar proposal at the end of the Committee stage. As I explained then, a definition is required to ensure that the obligations of the 1970 Act properly fall to those acting for children or for those with mental health problems. The existing definition can be traced back to at least 1880, and I reiterate that I agree that the wording used, such as “lunatic” or “idiot”, no longer feels appropriate, belonging as it does to the Victorian age, rather than to today’s times.
Mr Gauke
I am delighted if that is how the hon. Lady interprets my remarks, and if that pleases her, it pleases me.
In June, we produced our paper on the making of tax policy and we believe that it is very important to adopt a deliberative and consultative approach and, wherever possible, to consult thoroughly. We wish to avoid the experience of making reactive and piecemeal policy announcements that have been insufficiently thought through and result in unexpected consequences—we saw too much of that under the previous Government. Instead, we believe that appropriate consideration should be given to changes, thus providing an opportunity for those affected to comment and have certainty about our decisions. Any change on this matter should go through that process to ensure that we can come to this House with legislation that will work as intended.
Let me be clear that I agree that the wording in the current definition is outdated and that I am committed to delivering change. As I have said, my officials have already started to work with LITRG and will work with other groups that have the expertise to ensure that we get this right. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has alluded to the fact that LITRG is happy to work with Treasury officials and accepts the need to get this right. I believe that it will be possible to deliver change to the definition in the next couple of years along the timetable that LITRG accepts.
I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause to a vote, but I hope that he will engage with us on how to make the change behind the clause that we both agree is necessary. I am grateful to him for raising the issue in Committee and today. I agree that this should not be a matter of party political dividing lines and we will seek to address it. It has been of long-standing concern, but the Government are determined to address it, so I ask him to withdraw the clause.
Chris Leslie
I am impressed that the Minister has taken the time to encourage his officials to meet LITRG. I am pleased that he agrees about the outdated nature of some of these archaic terms: “idiot”, “lunatic”, “insane” and so on should not be part of our modern legislative lexicon. I am interested that yet again he manages to find a flaw in the drafting. It is almost like one of those circular nightmares: no matter what point any Opposition party makes to any Government, there is always a desire to resist by pointing out drafting and terminological problems. I think that the Minister accepts the spirit in which we have been trying to raise this issue.
I agree entirely that it is important to take whatever time is necessary to frame the definitions correctly in law, but we are not talking about designing a whole new regulatory regime for financial services or some convoluted way of taxing child benefit. We are simply talking about a minor change to modernise the terminology in tax law. I am still slightly sceptical about the argument that we need to take another couple of years to do so.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that any proposals work for the whole of the UK and not just for one or two parts of it?
Chris Leslie
Indeed, and that is probably why on this occasion I am happy to accede to the Minister’s request that Treasury officials be given more time to frame the change. However, I think that the patience of the House will be tested if we go for another seven years with these terms still in statute as we go through Finance Bill after Finance Bill after Finance Bill—we are going to have three, after all, this year, with another possibly coming shortly, although it is up to the Minister when that happens. I do not want to be back here tabling similar amendments. I hope that during the Minister’s tenure, before he is promoted to even higher office—I accept that that is probably imminent, whenever the reshuffle might come—he will make a commitment, at least, to show that this was one reform that he was able to champion. I would be grateful for that. On that basis and in that hope, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4
Seafarers’ earnings
Chris Leslie
I beg to move amendment 1, in page 7, line 40, leave out clause 4.
In Committee, we discussed the implications of clause 4, which I am happy to discuss again. It seeks to extend to seafarers resident in the European economic area the same 100% deduction from income tax of their earnings from employment as a seafarer wholly or partly outside the UK during an eligible period. I know that this is something about which many Members of the House will be very concerned.
At present the tax relief is available only to those seafarers who are ordinarily resident in the UK, but there are clearly seafarers resident in other EEA states yet not ordinarily resident in the UK who might also warrant the seafarers’ earnings deduction. The measure is listed in the Budget Red Book as costing the Exchequer £5 million annually and we debated the technical details of the clause, such as the navigation of waters beyond the UK continental shelf, how long would be spent away from the UK and how many seafarers are involved in the concession. The Minister said that it was in the order of 16,000.
The Minister also helpfully explained that the clause was brought forward as a result of the European Commission’s decision to challenge the compatibility of seafarers’ earnings deductions with the UK’s treaty obligations and to comply with our EU and EEA associations. It is welcome that the Conservative party is rushing to legislate to comply with these European arrangements. I know that some hon. Members—including the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite—will be more pro-European than others, but he seems to be persuading the Conservative party towards the pro-European stance. It is interesting that there is no dissent from that interpretation.
In Committee I raised in particular a specific and contemporary issue that has been a subject of some controversy: the impact on the mackerel fishing dispute between UK and Icelandic fishermen. The clause is highly relevant and might have a significant bearing on that dispute, because if enacted it would grant to the Icelandic fishermen—and the Norwegians for that matter—a set of tax relief arrangements that would be very useful to them. I asked the Minister a series of questions on that, but he merely asserted in his indomitable way that the clause was “not relevant” to those discussions. So, I want to try again.
Will the Minister say what discussions have taken place between the Government and the Governments of Norway and Iceland in the drafting of the provisions and in what respect they will be reciprocated for UK-resident seafarers in those countries? Has the Minister spoken with his counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Executive—I know that some hon. Members will be interested to learn about that—and the FCO regarding the impact that the change might have on the sensitive negotiations between the EU, Norway and Iceland over the mackerel quota? I gather that the practice of the Icelandic fishing community unilaterally to declare a larger catch quota for valuable fish, risking the sustainability of fish stocks and disrupting previously settled agreements, has caused consternation in some quarters. Is it therefore appropriate for the Treasury to grant this tax concession to Icelandic fishermen while there is such great sensitivity?
On Friday, I understand that the Icelandic ambassador to the UK, Benedikt Jonsson, met the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and others to discuss the mackerel dispute at a meeting in Aberdeen organised by the Icelandic consulate. I gather that “frank views”, as they are often called, were exchanged about what constitutes responsible management of that mackerel quota. Iceland continues to assert its right to catch a significantly increased quota this year outside the bounds of the international agreements. What are the UK Government doing to bring the dispute to a sensible conclusion? Would it not be wise to pause on the gifting of the seafarers’ earnings deduction to the Icelandic fishing community until such time that the question over the fair fishing of mackerel stocks is resolved?
Other issues might be relevant, too. Are we, for instance, still confident that the relationships between the UK and Iceland are ensuring that our fiscal position is protected? For example, the UK ought to be getting money back from the collapse of Icesave and other Icelandic banks, but there have been recent suggestions, particularly resulting from protests in Iceland, that there might be some delay in repaying foreign creditors with the priority that is deserved. Is it sensible to be offering tax concessions to Iceland when such negotiations are going on? I understand that there are also some question marks over whether the EEA treaty arrangements necessarily require such a tax concession to be ceded to the Icelanders.
I have asked a number of questions and I wonder whether the Minister can address them. They are not necessarily at the top of people’s minds in every constituency in this country, but there are some corners of the country where this is a big issue. I would be grateful for the Minister’s attention to it.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, amendment 1 seeks to remove clause 4 on the seafarers’ earnings deduction from the Bill. Doing so would prevent the extension of seafarers’ earnings deductions to EEA resident seafarers. By way of background, it is worth pointing out that in November 2008 the European Commission sent a pre-infraction letter on this matter. The Commission stated that the rules for seafarers’ earnings deductions are incompatible with the EU rules because the deduction is available only to seafarers who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. After due consideration of the Commission’s letter, the previous Government decided to respond by enacting a change in the law. Consequently, last year they said that they would legislate to extend the rules for this deduction, enabling European economic area resident seafarers from outside the UK to claim. The previous Government committed to implementing the change from April 2011.
Chris Leslie
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, which, given that he addressed some of the issues pertinent to the mackerel wars question in respect of arrangements for Icelandic fishermen—that was probably the biggest reason for the question mark over this clause—were certainly more thorough than those we had in Committee. He mentioned a couple of reasons why he did not feel that the measure would bite on that issue—if I may use that fishing pun. I am glad that he did not repeat his red herring claim against the amendment. The self-employment point was a fair one. He also said that the measure would hit only if there was a claim when Icelandic fishermen were landing their catches at UK ports and so forth. In particular, he talked about the European Court of Justice situation and the requirement that would fall on the UK and the consequences that would come from that. I know how much Members on the Government Benches are keen to abide by their European obligations. Given those strictures, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Economic Governance (EU)
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hoban
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. May I just advise him that the final meeting of the taskforce took place on 18 October? I attended that taskforce, as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We ensured that the language in the taskforce report guaranteed that sanctions would not apply to the UK. Paragraph 18 of the taskforce report refers
“to the specific situation of the UK in relation to Protocol 15 of the Treaties.”
In addition, paragraph 4 states that the measures set out in the taskforce report can be implemented through
“EU secondary legislation…within the existing legal framework of the European Union”,
so nothing in the report requires a treaty change. I am aware that France and Germany have suggested that there may be treaty changes, but we have yet to see the details of such proposals, which would be made to the European Council at the weekend.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister explain why the Prime Minister needs a further week before he updates the House on those matters? Could that be because he has yet to figure out exactly what the Government’s position is? Surely after looking at those negotiations, he recognises that this is an embarrassing position for the Government to be in, because the coalition’s policy on new European initiatives as they are introduced is far from clear.
We are still none the wiser, even though this issue was supposed to be debated today. It remains under “Future Business” on the Order Paper under a motion tabled by the Minister, which proposes that the House
“supports the Government’s approach to improving the functioning of the eurozone and reinforcing economic stability across the EU.”
If the Government are asking us to support their approach, could the Minister tell us what his policy is? It is clear to the House that one lesson we need to learn from the financial crisis is the need for better co-operation between Governments at European and global—G20—level, obviously to ensure that we address the imbalances in the worldwide economy that were the root cause of the crisis.
Of course, the euro area needs to sort out its own difficulties. We have supported eurozone countries in that respect in the past while making it clear that the UK taxpayer cannot be expected to bear the burden, but does the Minister agree that our focus in this country needs to be on jobs, housing and growth, not further rounds of navel-gazing on European governance?
If the Government were regarded as a serious player in Europe, they would have led and not followed these developments over the weekend. There are several reports from various quarters about a set of different policy outcomes—the President of the EU says one thing, and the French President and German Chancellor look set to propose changes to the treaty—but where was the Prime Minister during those conversations?
The Government are quite clearly too scared to talk even to some of their own Back Benchers on that question, but has the Prime Minister spoken to the Deputy Prime Minister about these matters? Whatever the Minister says, there are three wings to the coalition: half of the Conservative party want to leave the EU, the Lib Dems want to go head first into the euro, and the rump of the Government, represented by the Minister, are left straddling those two positions—they are the only ones with nothing to say. Is it not clear that the Prime Minister is isolated within his own coalition? It is no wonder that he is isolated in Europe.
Mr Hoban
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been absent from the House for some time, and he is a little rusty on some of these things, but I am sure that he will recollect that the practice followed by previous Prime Ministers was to report back to the House on the Monday after a European Council, not before. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make the statement that would be customarily expected of him.
It is important to ensure that we learn the lessons from the financial crisis. It was clear in the run-up to that crisis that fiscal discipline was lax not just in the euro area, but in the UK and other states. We have led the way in this debate by introducing the Office for Budget Responsibility, with a clear fiscal mandate for eliminating the structural deficit by 2014-15. The fact that we have led the debate is recognised by international bodies such as the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and others. We have set our mark on the debate in Europe, which is the right thing to do. It is right that other member states should achieve the same high standards of fiscal discipline as we do. We are leading the debate in Europe, not following it. The previous Government were silent on that, so what is the Opposition’s position now?
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady makes a brilliant and inspired point with which I completely agree, and it is therefore wise to ensure that such benefits as there are are directed to the people who need them, not wasted on people who do not need them. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) wants to say something, I am more than happy to give way.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill does not achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants, however. While I am on my feet, may I ask him whether he knows how many children in the United Kingdom are born with spina bifida each year, possibly as a result of a folic acid deficiency?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman says the Bill does not say where the money is going to be spent, but that is an absurd point to make because the public finances are in such a weak condition that, at this moment, money needs to be saved. The first principle for the Government—their first ambition and intention—must be to get the finances of this country on to a stable footing so that they can then, with economic growth, ensure that the money is there to help people in the future.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good and important point. The payment of this £190 comes too late in the process to be of benefit to people whose children may be at risk of spina bifida.
Chris Leslie
I would be surprised if many mothers—I certainly include my wife in this, when we were having our daughter—were able to discover that folic acid is available on the NHS. A multivitamin and folic acid supplement costs about £10, I think. Do the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady really think it is absolutely essential that these women having children should potentially be deprived of help to pay for that folic acid supplement because of this deficit reduction strategy?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) wonderfully and accurately pointed out, the hon. Gentleman had got the wrong part of the pregnancy; we have to go back, not forward.
Banking in Scotland
Chris Leslie Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as a trustee of the Consumer Credit Counselling Service in Scotland. I act in a voluntary capacity, with no remuneration. The CCCS is a debt advice charity, which has been greatly active on many of the matters raised by my hon. Friends and others during this welcome debate.
The debate is about a most welcome report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) said, the report, which was thorough and worth while, was published at the end of the previous Parliament. It was incredibly important, given the estimated one in 10 jobs in Scotland that are linked to the long-standing financial services industry. Jobs, of course, have subsequently been lost in Scotland, as they have elsewhere, bank branches have closed, and the whole economy has been affected by the credit crunch.
On this, my fourth day in my new role as shadow Financial Secretary, I anticipate having many debates on financial services and their impact on consumers in all corners of the country. Although I spoke far too much and at great length in my previous guise as a Back Bencher, I will take this opportunity to reiterate my default position on many of these matters and, in particular, on the three clear questions that I believe are fundamental to my new portfolio.
First, what reforms are necessary to minimise the systemic risk to a well functioning economy and society following the experience of the credit crunch? Secondly, how can we create a thriving and healthy financial services industry in the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, rebuilding it with a reputation for sustainability, solidity and trust? Thirdly, how can we ensure greater fairness for the consumers of financial services products, so that the industry operates on the basis of common sense and fair play?
It is heartening that many of the contributors to this debate not only focused on what might sometimes seem to be ethereal issues between the players in the industry, but considered matters very much from the consumer perspective, speaking of people’s encounters with issues that are central to their lives.
The report contains an excellent collection of evidence, taken over a long period, going back to November and December 2009. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the visits to Ireland and to evidence heard elsewhere, successfully bringing in the arc of prosperity and making important points on the changing circumstances and the erroneous arguments made by members of the Scottish National party.
Many interesting lessons on the housing market, on public sector deficit reduction and its impact on growth, on the regulation of credit rating agencies and so forth, are all brought out in the report. Perhaps most notable is the impact of the credit crunch on Scotland in respect of changes to the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland—HBOS—and we should not forget the difficulties that affected Dunfermline building society. The report is an eloquent exposition or post-mortem of the lessons that need to be learned from that period, and it is worth reiterating them.
Julian Smith
The report was eloquent. Did it make the hon. Gentleman reflect on the Labour Government’s role in what went wrong, and the lax regulatory regime that had been allowed to develop, which was the source of many of the problems for the financial services industry in Scotland?
Chris Leslie
Certainly we all have lessons to learn from the credit crunch. Countries across the world, including the UK, did not frame correctly the regulatory environment in which financial services operated. That is absolutely clear. However, it reminds me that we do not state often enough that it was the previous Labour Administration who saved our economy from falling over the cliff edge and into the abyss. Although the current Administration sometimes give the impression that they would not have committed the resources necessary to achieve that, I believe that any Administration of any colour would have had to take those steps. I am proud that my party did so, even though that may be the root cause of some of the deficit questions that have subsequently arisen.
Key lessons need to be learned. Too few people had proper cognisance of the true liabilities on the books of our major banks, either because of the complexity of the various products involved or because of the poor risk assessment of those financial instruments. Banks were over-reliant on the wholesale capital markets to finance their investments and lending, which created excessively leveraged positions and left the banks incapable of coping with the freezing up of the wholesale markets. In addition, the underlying market sentiment, which, like the banking practices, had existed for a long time, implied an assumption of continuous expansion, creating expectations of never-ending profitability with high-scale rewards and bonuses, which clouded the judgment of too many practitioners in the sector.
Julian Smith
Would the shadow Minister say that the banks were merely reflecting the zeitgeist and the leadership of the Government of the time by over-extending themselves, living beyond their means and paying far too much for their work force?
Chris Leslie
Much as we in politics might like to think that everything done in the political game shapes society at large, my view is that the economy and society around us—not only in this country but in the world at large—suffered from too much exuberance when it came to the allure and attraction of profitability in that sector. We should have taken a far more hard-headed approach all round. Much as I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on trying to make a party political point about the root cause of the global credit crunch, it would not be fair to pin it on one or two politicians in one or two countries. The problem was systemic and we must all learn the lessons from it; otherwise it will be repeated—and that will affect Scotland as well as the rest of the world.
HBOS was merged with Lloyds TSB to form Lloyds Banking Group, and subsequently took advantage of Government capitalisation, which led to 43% public ownership. RBS received public funds resulting in 63% public ownership, rising to about 84% with subsequent injections of new capital. Special liquidity support and a number of other instruments created circumstances where the Government were very much foisted into the driving seat of our financial services industry.
The Government set a number of conditions, and I am glad that the present Administration have maintained a number of them. They include urging the banks to maintain competitive lending to retail and business customers at 2007 levels and encouraging the banks to deal with several of the failings that they experienced, including issues of remuneration, restricting dividend payments, helping people struggling with mortgage payments and so on. Of course, experience tells us that we still need to hold the feet of the banks to the commitments drawn out of them in exchange for the resources that were given to save their very existence. We should certainly ask the Government and the Minister to what extent they are succeeding.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new role as shadow Minister. Does he agree that some of the rhetoric used, such as “holding the banks’ feet to the fire”, has created an awful situation for many of those working on the front line in the banks, who receive abuse or suffer the emotional difficulties that some Members have described today? We need to move away from that rhetoric and towards the understanding that only a small group of people were involved. The main reason for the banks’ difficulties was the lack of regulation in the past 10 years or so. The banks became such complex organisations that they almost lost control over what they were doing. Unfortunately, it is those now on the front line who are taking abuse for what was done by those who have now moved on to other highly paid roles.
Chris Leslie
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. It would be unfortunate if a cashier or teller was wrongly blamed by a member of the public for something that their bank or institution had done. I know that only a small number of individuals were involved in what happened, but this is an institutional problem and not just a personalised one. We cannot just change the faces of the directors at HBOS or RBS and expect that all the problems will be ironed out. Although we must consider the regulatory environment, we should understand that the problem is more the culture of the companies in that sector in general. As we know from other circumstances, Government can cajole and set the rules, but ultimately they are not the ones who should be running those firms responsibly. Good corporate governance should have taken a different path; it did not in the credit crunch. I hope that we can get things back on the rails, so that we have a sustainable and solid—perhaps some would say boring—financial services sector in future, and regain some of the trust that the City and the financial services industry both here and in Scotland truly deserve.
The report raises issues that definitely deserve attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West talked about the bonuses paid to high earners and the juxtaposition between ordinary front-line staff and the well paid senior executives. I am glad that the previous Chancellor instituted that one-off bank bonus levy of 50% on discretionary bonuses above £25,000. It yielded £2 billion, which was far more than expected. It will be interesting to watch how the current Administration and the Minister seek to deal with the ongoing concerns of the general public about excessive remuneration. Those concerns are legitimate and need to be addressed to rebuild the trust that is much deserved by those who are genuinely working hard to do their best in a very complex industry.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned the willingness of banks to lend to businesses. Discussions are under way with the British Bankers’ Association and others, and reports have been published today. We are hearing many conflicting reports. The banks themselves are adamant that money is available, yet the reports that we consistently receive in our surgeries across the country is that small and medium-sized enterprises are finding the hurdles that they have to jump over too high and that, too often, banks are not willing to do business with them. That exerts a lag effect on our economy in general and the problem definitely needs the Minister’s attention. We want the commitments that were given at the time of the rescue of the banking sector to be properly enforced. We should also see the public stake in our banking sector activated. Given that the public own that stake, they, like any owner of any company, should be able to ask that lending arrangements are fulfilled in the best interests of our economy.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is moving away from the previous Government’s position of managing RBS and Lloyds Bank at arm’s length to one in which the Government play an active role in their day-to-day management and lending decisions?
Chris Leslie
I certainly do not mean in the day-to-day lending decisions. That would be an incredible position for a politician to take with a bank. None the less, our constituents could legitimately say that if we—through the Treasury and UK Financial Investments—hold a stake on their behalf in these large institutions that play such a valuable part in all our lives, but do not ask questions about the commitments that were given and do not scrutinise the attention that banks are paying to those commitments, we are failing in our duties. That is my point. There is a level of active scrutiny, attention and challenge that the Government should adopt in that respect.
It is important, too, to focus on the point made in the report about lending to homeowners. Although it did not crop up often in the debate, that is a problem in Scotland. First-time buyers are more likely to find it hard to get mortgage finance. The deposit currently required is something in the order of 25%, which is an incredible burden on many of my hon. Friends’ constituents. The Chartered Institute of Housing says that there are more problems with house lending arrangements in Scotland than there are in the rest of the UK.
Concerns about the fair treatment of customers were well set out. They include unfair banking charges and the mark-up in rates of interest. The difference between the wholesale rate of interest that the banks pay and the rate of interest that they charge their customers, both businesses and retail, has been growing, probably fuelled by the requirement of the banks to rebuild their own balance sheets. None the less, that is something that customers in Scotland and elsewhere are extremely sceptical about. There are also questions about aggressive debt collection. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said that something like 135,000 debt problems had been brought to Scottish citizens advice bureaux in 2009-10. The massive job of providing such advice is falling on the shoulders of a very poorly funded voluntary sector in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) raised the important topic of financial education. I should like to see us revisit the extent to which the national curriculum explores how we teach young people about the basics of money. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the new consumer protection markets authority to consider that as well in due course.
This debate has been very worth while. Both directly and indirectly, banking has a massive effect on the lives of people in Scotland. The report is a perfect example of how the Scottish Affairs Committee speaks out for the interests of Scotland.