Draft European Union Budget

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed, I think that the achievement of the rebate at Fontainebleau was a signal achievement of her time in office, but of course that was done in the context of a multi-annual financial framework debate, and we are going through that process at the moment with our European partners. We have made it clear that the rebate is one of our red lines, and we will continue to stick to that, in the same way that we have been very clear about our outright opposition to the financial transaction tax. We will show backbone in these debates, but let us identify those opportunities where our power and leverage is at its highest, to maximise the price that we want in return.

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

While the Minister is in such a fine and confident mood, can he give a commitment that the UK Government will settle for nothing less than a real-terms reduction in the budget for the multi-annual financial framework—that spending review seven-year period?

[Mr Hoban]

I have to say that talk is very cheap on the Opposition Benches, as the amendment demonstrates. They may talk things up, but what was the previous Government’s record? It was to give away our rebate in the hope of some vague common agricultural policy reform. So let the negotiations continue and we will come to the House when they are concluded; we have been very clear about what we are seeking to achieve.

[Chris Leslie]

Ah!

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman may say “Ah”, but the reality is that when his party was in office it gave away the rebate and allowed a spending increase that permitted the EU budget to rise by another 11% this year. I do not think the Labour party’s record in government is anything that the Opposition should be proud of or crowing about.

Financial Services (Market Abuse)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend missed out on the opportunity that I and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) had of serving on the Financial Services Bill Committee. We spent a considerable amount of time developing the details of jurisdiction in the UK, through giving powers to the Financial Services Authority. There are areas where rules are made at a European level, but, equally, there are areas where rules are made in the UK, and it is not appropriate to say, “There’s only European law.” There is a whole raft of UK law on these matters.

To date, the UK has used the flexibility of the minimum harmonisation EU directive to create a stronger standard, applying the regime to more venues and having stronger rules. Now we have the opportunity to have a better framework applied across the whole of the EU, and that is in our interests.

It is clear that market abuse can take place beyond our borders and yet still affect securities traded within our borders. For that reason, the Government support the Commission’s objective to revise the EU market abuse framework. Improving the strength and consistency of the framework is vital to investor confidence.

There are challenges and opportunities in shifting to a regulation. There are challenges if the UK’s own practices are compromised. There are opportunities from having a more consistent and stronger EU regime and potentially reducing the cost and complexity of compliance for market actors.

Clearly, our prime objective is to ensure that the powers currently available to competent authorities are not weakened, which would damage the UK and the creditable work of the FSA. Secondly, we wish to deliver a robust framework for tackling market abuse within Europe.

Interest in changes to the market abuse framework extends beyond this House. In March, the European Central Bank published its opinion of the market abuse proposals. Its commentary focused largely on the new provision in the regulation for competent authorities to be able to delay the publication of inside information with systemic consequences. The Government echo the ECB’s support for seeking the legal framework to be improved in this respect. This is a key provision for the Bank of England and the FSA following the financial crisis and the difficulties experienced surrounding the disclosure of emergency lending assistance.

I want to outline briefly the EU market abuse package proposed by the Commission. In October 2011, the Commission published a regulation and an accompanying directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse. Those proposals together update the framework formerly established by the market abuse directive 2003, including proposing EU harmonisation of criminal law for market abuse for the first time. The legal basis for the criminal directive is article 83(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This is the first use of the relevant provision since the Lisbon treaty was agreed. It means that the directive is subject to a justice and home affairs opt-in. The UK and Ireland have discretion on whether it should apply to them. Denmark is automatically opted out. In light of the fact that this was the first use of the article, it was important that the Government carefully contemplated the issues and came to the appropriate decision.

The European Scrutiny Committee also considered the use of the opt-in. In its 52nd report of the last Session, the Committee noted that the full potential impact for the UK of the draft directive will become certain only once negotiations are concluded. The European Affairs Committee concurred with that opinion, but we are, of course, bound by the regulation.

The Government’s decision not to opt in at this time is a reflection of the sequencing of the directive compared with related legislative proposals. The proposed directive is entirely dependent on the outcome of the market abuse regulation, and the markets in financial instruments directive, which are both in relatively early stages of negotiation. The Government believe that it is very challenging to assess the implications, scope and way in which the criminal directive may develop, given the broader uncertainty of the market abuse framework, which itself is simultaneously subject to a major review.

The key issue here is ensuring that the interaction between the criminal and administrative regimes is clear and workable for all member states. Above all, we need to address the flexibility of when to apply a criminal penalty and when an administrative penalty needs to be retained within member states’ national systems. That must be determined on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the evidence of an individual case. In addition, there was uncertainty about whether the powers of competent authorities would be weakened in respect of accessing telephone records in the regulation and, potentially, the accompanying criminal directive.

It is essential that competent authorities have the flexibility to determine the appropriate type of penalty—whether it is criminal or administrative—and the powers available to them to investigate suspected cases of market abuse. The Council has itself recognised the difficulties involved in trying to complete negotiations on the criminal directive, with linked proposals being negotiated simultaneously. Therefore, the presidency decided to pause progress on the directive, in order to wait for policy progress to be made in the market abuse regulation.

However, I note that although the Government have decided not to opt in at this stage, we have continued to participate fully in negotiations. It is important that we use our expertise in combating market abuse, including the fact that the UK already covers market abuse in its criminal law today. If we are able to do that, and further progress the related proposals in the market abuse regulation and the markets in financial instruments directive in a manner that meets our objectives, we may consider opting in to the criminal directive. We can assess this only when the trio of proposals are properly progressed.

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

The Minister is giving a lucid and paced description of Government policy. Let me cut to the chase. It is important that he has the opportunity to hear my question. Are we as a nation—are the Government—opting in to the criminal sanctions market abuse directive, or is he proposing to opt out of it? Which is it?

[Mr Hoban]

At the moment, let me clarify the position by saying that we have not opted in. As I was saying, we need to see how discussions on three linked legislative proposals work through before deciding whether or not to opt in, but our priority is to ensure that we have a proper market abuse regime in place—one that maintains the highest standards and ensures that the Financial Services Authority, which is responsible for this area of policy, is enabled to use its powers fully to ensure that there is confidence in the integrity of markets.

So I can reassure the House that this Government will not allow legislation on market abuse to be insufficient, and we would not opt into a directive that would undermine the FSA’s current powers in this area. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue tonight, including the opt-in decision. This is an important issue, and it is right that hon. Members have an opportunity to debate it.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

As a consequence of the reforms that we are introducing, we are giving the FSA, and now the FCA, tougher powers to tackle these problems. The FSA has a much-reduced appetite for risk and a more interventionist approach to tackling matters where there appears to be consumer detriment. Some people feel very uncomfortable with this, but it is right for the FSA to act vigorously in defence of consumers and to take the necessary action to ensure that consumers get a fair deal. The Bill takes that one step forward and that is why we have been keen to ensure that we give the FCA more powers, which it has demonstrated the appetite to use.

Amendments 5 and 6 require the FCA and the PRA to publish a statement explaining how they consider making the proposed rules compatible with the principles of regulation set out in new section 3B. Given the important framing role of these principles, I agreed with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nottingham East in Committee that the Bill should be explicit about the regulator’s duty in that regard, and I committed to tabling the appropriate amendments when the Bill returned to the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be keen to support them.

Amendments 13 and 14 are minor and technical and are designed to maintain a position currently provided for in FSMA whereby the FSA is not required to make rules for the FSCS that provide cover over all regulated activities. The amendments ensure consistency with section 214(1)(g), which provides that the scheme may in particular provide for a claim to be entertained only if it is the type of claim specified by the scheme. These are technical changes and I hope that hon. Members will support the Government amendments and reject those tabled by the Opposition.

[Chris Leslie]

I am sorry that the Minister has not reacted to the importance of the issues in the amendments that we have tabled today, particularly when it comes to the need for small firms to have a greater capacity to complain or to make collective proceedings when there is lack of clarity about their capability to do so. The issues were raised not only by the Opposition; Government Members also felt it necessary to clarify these issues. The Minister should at the very least have committed to write to hon. Members so that they could pass on to the businesses in their constituencies a clear route map for communicating some of these questions, such as interest rate swap mis-selling. All we sought was that small firms that feel aggrieved should have their concerns taken seriously as consumers of financial products, but hopefully the point has been made in the debate.

I am sorry that the Minister felt it necessary to reject our amendments on stewardship issues. It is not good enough for the Government to rebut such questions. The Prime Minister had plenty of warm words in January when this issue was high on the media agenda, but we have seen precious little action subsequently. The Government are not taking the stewardship issue seriously and it is important that they do so, particularly with regard to the remuneration committees of some of the largest corporations and our banks and the idea that these obscene bonuses and excessive pay packages can continue to roll on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said, the remuneration committees are self-perpetuating. Would it not be a good idea to broaden them out and try to put an employee voice on their panel, and make sure that they appointed consultants in a way that did not conflict with their own management’s vested interests?

After we have voted on amendment 40, which we debated on day one of Report, on the need to regulate some of the excessive high-cost credit arrangements, I will press to a Division amendment 38 on remuneration committees, because it typifies one of those areas on the stewardship agenda where we need to see action most swiftly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22

Rules and guidance

Amendment proposed: 40, page 80, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) The FCA may make rules or apply a sanction to authorised persons who offer credit on terms that the FCA judge to cause consumer detriment. This may include rules that determine a maximum total cost for consumers of a product and determine the maximum duration of a supply of a product or service to an individual consumer.’.—(Stella Creasy.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

As I said, all the information in the convergence programme is already in the public domain. It was published at the time of the Budget by both the Treasury and the OBR, in accordance with our commitments.

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

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

No, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to make his own contribution in his distinctive style, and doubtless I will have a chance to wind up and respond to the points made. However, I have gone on for nearly 30 minutes, and other hon. Members want to take part. I will now allow him to do so.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Part of the challenge is that such schemes are part of a subset of advance payment schemes that are not necessarily covered by the Bill. These issues are consumer issues and I shall certainly raise with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs where he feels that the best opportunity might be to do that and whether there are some non-statutory alternatives to regulation that will help protect the customers of such schemes.

Before I speak to Government amendment 3, I can let my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North know when the research will be published. The research project will conclude this summer, and given that the transfer of consumer credit to the FCA will not take place until 2014, that gives us time to act. That is not to say that nothing is happening in the meantime in the regulation of consumer credit: the OFT is doing a great deal of work in that area. I am as keen as he and others are to ensure that the matter is brought to a head as soon as possible, so that the right protections are put in place for our constituents.

Government amendment 3 aims to improve the drafting, following the close and valuable scrutiny in the Public Bill Committee. In Committee, questions were raised about the appropriateness of “supply”, and the amendment clarifies the Money Advice Service financial education function so that it should include the promotion of awareness of the financial advantages and disadvantages relating to issues that may arise over the lifetime of the product, not just to the initial purchase or supply of a particular good and service. The function might include, for example, promoting awareness of the financial advantages and disadvantages of a person exercising the right to receive part of their pension savings as a lump sum, or the financial advantages or disadvantages of the various options open to a person who is having difficulty paying their mortgage.

I am confident that the Bill as it stands already provides for such matters to be covered by the Money Advice Service financial education function, but the amendment helpfully clarifies the scope of the MAS’s specific duty to promote awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of particular goods and services. I am grateful to the Members who raised the matter in the Committee, and I hope that the amendment addresses their concerns.

Amendments 37 and 55 would affect the functions of the MAS. Amendment 55 would require the MAS to support the provision of legal advice in relation to personal debt, with funding received from the Ministry of Justice to support that work. The amendment would reinstate changes to legal aid in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. For the reasons clearly set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, we cannot use the Financial Services Bill to compensate for reforms to legal aid in the other Bill as a roundabout way of maintaining funding for not-for-profit bodies; moreover, effectively reinstating those categories in the scope of legal aid means reinstating legal aid for all legal advice, not just for those in not-for-profit organisations.

Amendment 55 is not required because the Money Advice Service already has sufficient responsibility and funding to assist members of the public with debt management. The MAS and other organisations provide debt advice directly, including by advising people who are facing difficulties with debt on the options available to them and the possible legal ramifications. For example, they provide advice to people who are at risk of losing their home and advice on options to resolve their financial difficulties. Any debt adviser trained to intermediate level can give advice on such matters as a matter of course. In contentious areas of law, such as the impact of insolvency or immigration status, an adviser could seek external advice. Similarly, if a non-debt issue arose, or substantive legal advice was required, an adviser could refer the client to a specialist solicitor. I therefore do not think the amendment is necessary, as the MAS and other organisations, through their debt advice services, already advise people facing difficulties with debt on the impact of the law on their situation.

Amendment 37 would require the MAS to provide

“targeted, proactive and easily accessible advice to those encountering economic disadvantage, financial exclusion or financial exploitation.”

I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment: clearly, the service provided by the MAS should encompass such groups of people. However, as I said in Committee, one of the key features of the Money Advice Service is the breadth of consumers it is there to serve. Millions of people can be vulnerable to poor money management at any point in their lives, especially as they experience key life events. Similarly, many people, regardless of their financial circumstances, may not know where to turn for impartial financial advice, or may not know that they need information and advice in the first place. I therefore do not think it appropriate for the legislation to prescribe which groups are in most need of the service. By focusing the Money Advice Service on particular groups, we risk neglecting others who may be equally in need.

It is clear to me, from discussions I have had with the management of the Money Advice Service, that they recognise the need to provide support across a wide range of people. They also recognise the importance of face-to-face debt and money advice and the importance of ensuring the right channels of support are there to help those in need of financial advice—for example, those who need guidance on how to get out of debt or how to protect their families in the long term. I believe the MAS is acutely aware of its broader social obligation.

The group of amendments before us raises important issues that impact on many in our constituencies. The action that we have taken to tighten the consumer credit regime by moving consumer credit from the OFT to the FCA is the right way to proceed. This is a dynamic and changing market, and one of the great advantages that the FCA brings is the opportunity to keep issues such as the cost of credit under review and to make sure that it responds in a timely manner to help protect our constituents in these difficult areas.

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

I suppose the Minister is right in one respect. This long group of amendments under the catch-all heading “Consumer protection” raises many issues about which our constituents care deeply. It is just a shame that the Minister is resisting and rebutting almost all of them, except the Government amendments. But I do not want to sound too churlish. He has conceded—we have managed to extract—one minor concession from the Government in Government amendment 3. I therefore feel that all those hours and weeks in Committee were productively spent, and for that small measure I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Time is short so I will comment on the series of amendments tabled by the Minister, and then on those in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). Government new clause 4 sets out a series of order-making powers for the Treasury in respect of the transfer of regulation of consumer credit matters from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority. I am grateful for the clarification of the Government’s intentions. My comments on this and the consequential amendments in the group relate to the time scale for these arrangements. The new clause sets out the paving changes rather than the regulations, saying that the Treasury may well make these orders in due course. It gives a sense of the architecture of those and the fact that most of the powers available to the OFT under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will be available to the FCA and so on, but we do not yet have the time scale for those orders to be made and to take effect.

Many loose ends remain, even after the amendments. How will the local weights and measures authorities dovetail with the new arrangements, the FCA and so forth? What is holding the Government up in making those changes, publishing the new arrangements and making it clear to those who may be slightly concerned that the transition period could create a sense of limbo in which a number of issues fall between the gaps? We do not want consumer credit arrangements to be put on the back burner during the transfer—quite the opposite. We need this time more than ever to help consumers who are under strain on various fronts, as is pointed out in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and others.

New clause 9 in my name seeks, as the Minister mentioned, to require the Financial Conduct Authority to produce recommendations within a year of the commencement of the Act to phase out the practice of directly charging consumers fees or charges for the provision of debt management plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I welcome the Minister’s comments. Setting aside whether he thinks the new clause should be added to the Bill, he seems to be saying that he agrees it would be a good idea in principle to encourage all banks and other lenders to engage in some sort of forewarning of customers. Does he agree that if he says that is a good idea and the Opposition think it is a good idea, that sends a signal to the new regulator to make that a priority?

[Mr Hoban]

I do not think this needs regulatory action. I think it is in the interests of lenders to provide the right information to their borrowers to enable them to plan ahead, however, because it is not in the interests of lenders for borrowers to fall into arrears as a consequence of increases in interest rates. That is why it is important that potential changes in interest rates are considered in lending decisions and that information is available to help borrowers to think about the impact on their circumstances of changes in interest rates. I do not believe that is necessarily a regulatory matter; rather, I think it is in the interests of firms and their borrowers that such information be available.

On the issue of consumer credit, I do not think amendment 40 is necessary. The Treasury is confident that a range of powers is in place to help people in respect of payday lenders and high-cost lenders. I do not believe new clause 10 is necessary either, but I think it is in the interests of lenders to ensure that the information in question is available.

On new clause 12, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) spoke very powerfully about the Farepak issue and how to protect such consumers in future. We must recognise, however, that there is a cost attached to any additional protections for consumers, and that it will, to some degree at least, be borne by consumers.

The question of the regulation of prepayments is complex, as was evident from the work done by the previous Government after the publication of the “Pay now, pay later” report by Consumer Focus. There are no simple solutions, particularly when we want to ensure that vulnerable consumers or those on low incomes can still access the goods and services they want. Introducing some form of set-aside or ring-fencing of funds or some form of insurance in order to be able to compensate consumers in the event of an insolvency can impose significant additional costs on businesses and therefore potentially on consumers. Several industry sectors have concluded that the gains from increased consumer confidence outweigh the costs, however, and have gone ahead with sector schemes. We will continue to monitor this topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) asked who was the right Minister to pursue in this regard: I suggest it is the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb).

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran also asked about credit hierarchy. That is an important subject, and I am very conscious of delays in making payments to the Farepak creditors. We must, however, bear in mind the fact that one of the aims of insolvency law is, as far as possible, to achieve an equitable distribution among the unsecured creditors. Those unsecured creditors could, of course, include small suppliers for whom the debt from a prepayment scheme could result in the failure of their business. There is therefore a difficult balance to strike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

We want to see more competition in the financial services sector. That is an important aspect of improving choice and reducing costs for consumers, but essentially the amendments that I have been discussing relate to prudential regulation. I do not think the competition argument necessarily supersedes that.

I agree, and there is cross-party support for this, that we need to improve prudential regulation within our financial regulatory system. There is a degree of consensus in that area, which is why we did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading, for example. The question is how that pans out. The Chair of the Select Committee began his comments by saying that the Bill is defective in a number of regards and needs significant improvement. Amen to that. I agree. That is the problem and that is why I have so many concerns about aspects of the Bill, particularly in clause 5, in respect of the way the Government are choosing to divide up the regulators.

I must move on. Another area about which I have concerns is the Government’s refusal to accept that the Bank of England should be under a duty to minimise the use of public funds—to minimise the recourse to taxpayers’ money—in order to support or rescue parts of the UK financial industry. If we were all to go back to our constituencies and explain what we were doing on Monday, we would say that we had been talking about the Financial Services Bill. Most of our constituents would say, “Good. Does that mean that the taxpayer is not going to be on the line to bail out all those banks again in the future?” and of course we would all want to say yes. That is the whole purpose of what we are supposed to be doing here.

One of the most important things we need in the Bill is a provision to ensure that the system is designed such that any changes or rescue arrangements will not burden the taxpayer in the future. It is important to specify that the Bank of England should take responsibility for minimising that likelihood. It is a pretty straightforward amendment. These should not be partisan issues. That aim should be at the heart of the Bank’s financial stability objective. We know about the costs of bailing out the banks and how those have hit public finances.

Having heard the Minister’s entreaties in Committee, the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and others said that the our earlier amendment was deficient because it would have placed a duty on the Bank of England to minimise the use of public funds. I have thought about that carefully and come back with an amendment that simply requires the Bank to have regard to the need to minimise that. I hope that removes any worry about justiciability, which was one of the arguments upon which the Minister relied to rebut the suggestion in Committee. I do not think it is reasonable to say that it will blur or confuse the issue if we ask the Bank of England to keep in its mind’s eye the impact that any of its decisions will have on public funds. Ultimately, most of our constituents would expect us to legislate today to minimise the recourse to public funds. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. If not, the other place will return to the issue.

The hon. Member for Chichester pointed to amendment 53 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) about parliamentary scrutiny. For this House, it is an incredibly important issue and I know that Members on the Government Benches feel strongly about it too. We are giving the Bank of England extensive new powers that will affect businesses, consumers and our constituents. We still do not know what these macro-prudential tools will be. We had a report from the Bank of England last December intimating that they may touch on certain aspects of loan-to-value ratios, although Paul Tucker, the deputy governor at the Bank of England, said the other day, “This looks like hot stuff. Maybe it’s too hot for us to handle at the Bank of England.” Maybe that is for the Treasury to decide. I think the Bank of England recognises that there is an accountability deficiency. That golden threat of accountability does not lead back to Parliament, as it should.

[Mr Hoban]

We have spent a lot of time discussing the issue. Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that the power to grant macro-prudential tools is subject to the affirmative procedure? There is a role for Parliament to play. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said on Second Reading that he hoped that that debate would take place on the Floor of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the very least that we should have. I simply counsel the House that many hon. Members are already under significant pressure because of the European rules and regulations that seem to come from an unaccountable place. It is not entirely unaccountable, but it can sometimes feel that way to our constituents. If we end up with a situation where we do not put in place at this stage the right parliamentary scrutiny arrangements, we are potentially opening up another front where a powerful institution, unelected and seemingly very distant from our constituents concerns, could have a major impact on their day to day lives, and we would be sitting here twiddling our thumbs unable to do anything about it, never mind even to debate it. We have had debates in the past on the retail distribution review and other examples where there has been massive frustration in the House about the lack of an accountability thread between parliamentarians and regulators. That would be magnified many times over if we did not put in place the right arrangements.

[Mr Hoban]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Parliament should override the detailed rules of regulators?

[Chris Leslie]

In certain circumstances, Parliament should be sovereign. That is an important principle in our constitution. I do not think that regulators should be able to override Parliament, if that is the Minister’s suggestion. I am pretty sure it is not. Ultimately, in certain circumstances, Parliament should be able to make the final decision. That is an important cornerstone of our constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to ensure that the right scrutiny arrangements are in place, but we also need to recognise that the super-affirmative procedure can create delays, because there are times when if the House is in recess the clock stops, so there is a challenge there. In addition, a blanket adoption of a super-affirmative procedure may mean that even minor technical changes are subject to quite a lengthy process. The point that I would take from this debate is that we need to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny of these measures is in place, and that there is proper consultation with the public and a proper assessment of the economic impact of these macro-prudential tools on the wider economy. I hope that the Government’s position is clear. I am not ruling out the proposal. There are some issues with it, but we are committed to ensuring that the right procedures are in place to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny.

I come now to the matters at the heart of new clause 1 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and his colleagues from the Treasury Committee. I agree entirely that the robustness of the Bank of England’s governance arrangements is vital. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been absolutely right to point out that it is even more important given the expanded responsibilities provided to the Bank of England under the legislation. There is a consensus that the governance of the Bank needs to be strengthened in order better to equip it for these new roles. The court will need to adapt and evolve in order to operate as an effective governing body, able to oversee the Bank in transition and in steady state, ensuring that the Bank is adequately resourced to meet its new responsibilities, offering challenge to the Bank’s executive and supporting accountability to Parliament. With that in mind, a set of proposals has already been put forward by the Bank of England to help address these concerns.

Last year the Treasury Committee published an in-depth and thoughtful report into the accountability of the Bank. In response to that, the court of the Bank of England set out some positive and constructive proposals to strengthen its oversight of the Bank’s financial stability activities and to enhance accountability. Central to the court’s proposals is the creation of a new oversight committee for financial stability, a sub-committee of the court that will be responsible for overseeing the entirety of the Bank’s financial stability activities. This wholly non-executive committee will have access to the meetings and papers of the Bank’s policy-making committees, including the FPC, and will be able both to review the internal decision-making processes leading to policy outcomes and to commission periodic reviews of policy-making performance from expert external authorities. These reports will be published, unless publication would be contrary to the public interest. We welcome the court’s proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, in his remarks welcoming the court’s response to the Treasury Committee’s recommendations, recognised that there has been change, but he also outlined a number of areas in a report published on 23 January and argued that the court’s proposals did not go far enough, particularly with regard to the policy reviews. Recognising this, the Chancellor agreed with the Governor and the chair of the court that the new oversight body will be expected to commission retrospective internal reviews from the Bank’s policy makers of their own policy making and implementation performance. I think that the Bank has made some progress, but my hon. Friend raised the important question of whether the oversight arrangements should be set out in primary legislation in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester also mentioned publication of the court’s minutes. The Bank has committed to publishing what it terms a record of future court meetings. It is worth pointing out that the FPC also produces what it calls a record of its meetings, which is a very full account of the debates that go on in the FPC, and we will expect a similar process to be undertaken for the court’s meetings. Let me be clear: I believe that there is a clear need for the Bank’s accountability arrangements to be strengthened through the publication of the court’s minutes and the enhanced scrutiny of the court’s work, although I believe that the changes announced by the Bank help address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and the Treasury Committee. He made some powerful arguments that have been echoed by other members of the Committee, and we will consider further whether these arrangements should be put in the Bill. We will reflect on these matters and reconsider them when the Bill goes to the other place. I hope that that helps to reassure the House on how seriously we take these matters and our willingness to listen and respond to the concerns raised by Members during the debate, particularly the contributions made by my hon. Friend and others.

[Chris Leslie]

I just want to be clear about what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that when the Bill comes before the other place for consideration he will accept retrospective reviews and publication of minutes or that he will simply consider it?

[Mr Hoban]

We are clear that we want to see the court’s minutes published, which I think is absolutely vital, and that we want to see those retrospective reviews in place. The questions my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has asked are whether we have gone far enough, whether the proposals should be in the Bill or whether we should just accept the proposal put forward by the court. Tonight I have committed to listening to those arguments—he made a powerful speech—and returning to the issue when the Bill goes to the other place.

Royal Bank of Scotland (FSA Report)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

Today the Financial Services Authority published its report on the failures that led to the near collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland. It is a thoroughly detailed report, listing a catalogue of management and regulatory failures that almost felled one of the world’s largest banks. Given the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that was needed to bail out the bank, not once, but twice, and for a total sum of £45 billion, it is right that taxpayers are told the full story.

It is fair to say that the report makes for depressing reading. For the shadow Chancellor, it is as damning as it is depressing. The report lays bare the gross failures of the regulatory regime that was devised and driven by the shadow Chancellor and his party.

It is now well known that the tripartite system set up by the previous Government failed spectacularly in its mission to maintain stability. The decision to divide responsibility for assessing systemic financial risks between three institutions meant that in reality no one took responsibility. As the report laments, the FSA was solely responsible for the entire range of financial regulation issues, from the prudential soundness of major systemically important banks, to the conduct of some 25,000 financial intermediaries.

The failure of regulatory culture was equally significant as the failure of institutional design. The report says:

“What was wrong in the case of RBS was the FSA’s overall approach to prudential supervision, rather than the execution of this approach in relation to RBS.”

More than that, the report says that it was an approach that

“responded to political pressures for a ‘light touch’ regulatory regime.”

The report singles out the shadow Chancellor as one of the three senior Labour politicians who were responsible for this “sustained” pressure. It quotes his first speech as City Minister in which he said

“nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime.”

It was political dogma at the cost of prudential regulation, and it left us hamstrung with a complacent regulator, powerless against the risks in the financial system. It meant that the FSA failed sufficiently to challenge RBS management over its decisions, and was over-reliant on the firm’s own assessment of its position. Rather than exercising judgment and foresight, the FSA adopted a tick-box and reactive approach to regulation.

Left to its own devices, without proper regulatory oversight, RBS got away with some of the most shocking decisions taken by any bank in the years and months leading to the crisis in late 2008. Poor judgment was fostered by a style of management and governance that promoted a culture of aggressive risk-taking over prudence. That was most clearly demonstrated by RBS’s decision to grow its investment bank by aggressively expanding its structured credit and leveraged finance activities. That build-up of risk was compounded by RBS’s relentless pursuit and purchase of ABN AMRO. The current chairman of RBS said that the acquisition was

“the wrong price, the wrong way to pay, at the wrong time and the wrong deal.”

As the House is aware, it was the losses in the RBS investment banking arm that crippled the entire bank. As the credit trading losses mounted, the bank’s excessive reliance on short-term wholesale funding and its weak capital position were brutally exposed, and led to its near collapse.

The British economy is still recovering from the near collapse of RBS and the wider financial system just three years ago. Recovering from that crisis is this Government’s No.1 priority. We simply cannot afford a repeat of it, which is why we have embarked on fundamental reform of our regulatory system. As the House is aware, the Government are legislating fundamentally to reform the failed tripartite system. We are establishing a permanent financial policy committee inside the Bank of England. Its job will be to monitor overall risks in the financial system, identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous interconnections and stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. It is exactly the kind of judgment and foresight that we needed in the years preceding the last crisis.

We are also abolishing the Financial Services Authority in its current form, and creating a new Prudential Regulation Authority with a focus on micro-prudential regulation. Prudential regulation of banks will go back to where it belongs, under the auspices of the central bank, as a subsidiary of the Bank of England, bringing micro and macro-regulation under one roof.

The PRA will be a focused, expert regulator. Whereas the FSA was responsible for thousands of financial services firms, the PRA will focus exclusively on the prudential regulation of deposit-takers, insurers and investment banks. And when regulating banks, it will have the single statutory objective of promoting safety and soundness. Responsibility for the protection of consumers and the conduct of financial services firms will transfer to the new Financial Conduct Authority, leaving the PRA free to focus first and foremost on stability.

We are also working closely with the FSA and the Bank of England to ensure that the new PRA has the powers that it needs to ensure that banks do not take excessive risks and that directors who act improperly face appropriate penalties. We will consider carefully the further recommendations made in the report, particularly Lord Turner’s suggestion that it should be made easier for action to be brought against the directors of failed banks.

I share the frustration of many Members that it has not been possible to bring action against those responsible for the failures at RBS, but strengthening legal powers in this area would raise some complex issues, and we will want to reflect carefully and listen to a range of views before deciding on any action.

The report into the failure of RBS fully complements our analysis of the faults of the previous regime and supports our wider reforms to the banking system. We will respond to the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking next Monday. We have already said, though, that we support in principle not only a ring fence around better-capitalised high street banks to protect them against investment banking losses but, when things go wrong, a bail-in of private investors, not a bail-out by taxpayers. Together with recovery and resolution plans, that means that we are working to ensure that banks can fail in an orderly fashion without any recourse to taxpayers’ money.

We will not make the same mistakes as the previous Government but will ensure that we have a system of regulation that secures our financial stability while protecting our competitiveness, and we have already made substantial progress in that ambition. I welcome the action already taken by the FSA to strengthen its supervisory capacity, to become a more intensive and intrusive regulator and to improve its ability to ensure that banks are well governed.

We continue to lead the international debate to impose higher capital requirements and tougher funding standards on banks across the globe, and we will resist any attempt to unpick Basel III in Europe. With the world focused on the strength of bank balance sheets, this is not the time to pander to vested interests. We will ensure that Basel III is implemented in full and that we can go further to impose higher capital standards where necessary to meet risks unique to our sector.

We know that the financial sector will continue to be a critical part of our economy and our recovery, and we are committed to supporting the sector and protecting the open and competitive markets that have allowed the sector to flourish in the UK, but that success cannot come at a cost to the wider economy. That means getting the structure and substance of regulation right and correcting the mistakes of the previous Government.

Today’s report reminds us of the gross failures of the previous regime and the previous Government. This Government will not repeat those mistakes. We will reform the regime to preserve the innovation that fuels the sector’s success without putting the wider economy at risk and to build a successful but stable financial services sector. I commend this statement to the House.

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

The report confirms that there was institutionalised dysfunction at the heart of the Royal Bank of Scotland and confirms what we all know—that there was a collective failure of regulation not just in Britain but around the world, and that there were failures not just of one individual, institution, political party or Government but failures that allowed irresponsible bankers to take excessive risks and cause a global financial crisis.

Labour Members have accepted our responsibilities, and as my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said, for the part that the previous Government played in that global regulatory failure, we are deeply sorry. Acknowledging our part in those global failings is the right approach to take, so let me ask the Minister: does he accept that the Conservatives got it wrong too? During the 2007 debates on Northern Rock, he beseeched the Treasury

“to counter the pressure for greater regulation”,

and talked of

“the strength of our regulatory regime”

and how it was

“vital that this crisis does not erode that standing”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 391.]

It would be unparliamentary to call the Minister a hypocrite but perhaps he needs some medical advice about his selective amnesia. Let us have some contrition from the Conservative party, which never once called for more regulation or criticised the FSA for not having enough powers. In fact, it argued precisely the opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting on the Front Bench, complained constantly of burdensome and complex regulations.

The FSA is clear that there was a collective failure, but there was also clarity about how the regulator was at fault. Specifically, the report says that the monitoring of RBS’s capital position was “reactive”, and that “supervision of liquidity” was a “low priority”. The FSA did not scrutinise the trading book or loan impairments adequately, and the takeover of ABN AMRO was not questioned sufficiently. Can the Minister say, first, whether the FSA had the co-operation of all former RBS directors, and whether they were all interviewed? His statement was somewhat vague about action against those responsible—he says that he will reflect carefully. Can we take it then, reading between the lines of his statement, that the Government will not pursue action to disqualify former RBS directors from sitting on other company boards?

Secondly, the Minister says that he will “consider” tough action to ensure that bankers who jeopardise the solvency of our retail banks cannot escape responsibility. There should be a new strict liability requirement specifically for banking directors. If the Minister does not amend the draft Financial Services Bill to achieve that, we will table amendments to that effect. The report suggests that future bank takeovers should require formal approval by the regulator, which was not required when RBS took over ABN AMRO. That is sensible, so can the Minister say whether he will amend the draft Bill accordingly?

Thirdly, will the Government take steps to strengthen the corporate governance of large public companies, including banks? Regulators have to do a better job, but shareholders also need to be able to exert their authority. Fourthly, will the Minister agree to implement the legislation already approved in law to publish the pay deals of everyone working in the banking sector earning more than £l million? The Government have dragged their feet on this issue. A simple signature to a statutory instrument is all that is needed. Surely it is important to have transparency and accountability for all the high earners in the banks, not just the richest eight in each bank, as he has conceded so far.

Fifthly, the report highlights a culture of incentive fees for City advisers, whose rewards are greatest if large takeovers are completed. The report recommends ending that bias in the advisory fee structure. Why did the Minister ignore that recommendation in his statement? Does he agree that the proposal would make good sense? The FSA and the Government did not see the financial crisis coming, but neither did the Bank of England. Is the Minister certain that putting all the new regulatory powers in the hands of the Bank will work? Is there a risk that the accountability of the Bank of England—an important point—is substandard in his current proposals? Will he accept the suggestions from the Select Committee on the Treasury and others that those safeguards need to be significantly enhanced?

We of course support moves to enhance prudential regulation, but there is always a danger of fighting the last battle, especially when there could be a eurozone credit crunch just around the corner, so is the Minister not taking his eye off the ball? Will he acknowledge that the new European supervisory structures are incredibly powerful and that, by mishandling negotiations in Europe so badly, the Government have jeopardised our ability to influence and steer those European regulations, which can overrule the tougher capital buffers for our banks, as suggested by the FSA here in Britain?

The regulators did not do enough, and we have to learn lessons. However, ultimate culpability rests on the shoulders of the bankers involved. It is astonishing that deeply irresponsible decisions by those bankers should have forced a £45 billion bail-out, and yet no enforcement action is brought and nobody is punished. It is about time that this Government stopped pandering to the big banks and took action to speed up banking reform and rein in the excessive bonus culture.

[Mr Hoban]

The approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to try to blame everybody for the crisis, overlooks the key role that the shadow Chancellor—who is not in his place today—played in the design of the regulatory system that led to the problems we saw at RBS. That design—driven by the shadow Chancellor, who took great credit for it—meant that no backstops were in place when RBS took those decisions.

The other point that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind is that only three politicians are named in the report as having put pressure on the FSA to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime. One was Tony Blair, one was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and the third one—the person who is missing from the Opposition Front Bench today—is the shadow Chancellor, the person who in his first speech as City Minister called on the FSA to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime, a regime that, when confronted with the challenge of RBS, turned from a light touch to a soft touch. It is, of course, the taxpayer who has picked up the bill for the fundamental flaws in Labour’s regulatory regime.

The hon. Gentleman talked about disqualification of RBS directors. It is a pity that the previous Government did not think about that issue in the aftermath of the financial crisis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has referred the report to counsel to see whether it is possible to disqualify the directors of RBS.

The hon. Gentleman talked about approval for acquisition. We will look carefully at the proposal Lord Turner made, but the reality is that the FSA had powers to intervene, but chose not to use them—partly as a consequence of the light-touch regime foisted on them by the previous Government.

When the hon. Gentleman talks about bonuses, let us not forget that it was under the previous Government that bonuses could be paid out in cash and taken straight away. Under the regime in place now, bonuses are deferred, paid out in shares and can be clawed back. Let us not forget that the moment that it was possible to exercise the maximum leverage on Sir Fred Goodwin—the banker Labour knighted—was the moment when it gave away his pension scheme. So I will take no lessons from the Labour party on the way in which we should deal with the problems of RBS.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bank of England and seemed to question whether it was able to take on the additional responsibilities. I thought he was moving away from his party’s position of supporting the package of reforms that we have put forward. Let me remind him that it was the Bank of England that identified the problem of the mispricing of risk in the financial markets. The problem was that the regulatory structure it had to deal with meant that the Bank did not have the power to tackle the problem—nor, indeed, did the FSA. What we are faced with is a problem of dealing with the regulatory regime left to us by the previous Government. They chose not to make these reforms when they were in government; we are taking action now to ensure that we have the right regime in place to tackle those risks and ensure that we have a stable, but successful, financial services sector.

Northern Rock

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was simply making the point that the Chancellor ought to have been here today because there are so many questions to answer about this deal. Obviously it is right that Northern Rock should be leaving public ownership, just as it was right to take it into public ownership in 2008 to avoid a catastrophe, but the decision to sell at this time and in this manner raises some very serious questions. Will the Minister confirm the net loss to the taxpayer from the sale, and that the proceeds will be used in their entirety to pay down the national debt?

On the sale’s timing, I read in the papers, and the Minister said again today, how the Government are blaming Europe and Labour—I am surprised that they have not blamed the civil service yet. These are weak excuses that just will not wash. He should start taking responsibility for some of his own decisions, and he should be doing what is right for the British taxpayer, not hiding behind EU rules. If he felt constrained by the EU requirement to sell by the end of 2013—let us remember that it is still only 2011—why did the Government not try to change that? If he is now suggesting that it was a bad deal for the taxpayer and that he would rather have waited, why did he not ask the European Commission for an extension? With the economy flat-lining, bank shares in decline and a deepening crisis in the eurozone, he could easily have made the case that circumstances had changed. Or does this fire sale suggest that they think that conditions will get even worse?

The Government have a duty to ensure that the deal is good for taxpayers, the economy, the new company and its customers and staff, so why is he scared to issue an initial public offering for Northern Rock? With about £700 million of excess equity on its balance sheets, why on earth is he selling it privately for 66p in the pound? Contrary to the headlines, this deal is funded not principally by Richard Branson, but rather with £250 million from US financier Wilbur Ross, a stake from an Abu Dhabi sovereign fund and—wait for it— £250 million of Northern Rock’s own money, using its existing capital assets in a complex financial swap deal. Is the Minister not a little troubled that the company’s assets are being stripped even before it changes ownership?

What is Northern Rock’s current core tier 1 capital position, and what does the Treasury anticipate it will be in three years? We know that the Financial Services Authority has voiced its anxieties about such a substantial removal of capital. What safeguards will it be given if these capital buffers are to be thinned out so dramatically? The Financial Times reports that Wilbur Ross has paid about 80% of the book value for Northern Rock, yet he is quoted as saying that he would have

“to sell out a few years down the road for 1.5 times book value.”

That is 150%. Is the Minister comfortable with the news that the Government have sold to an individual actively planning to dispose of the bank quickly and nearly double his money? Does that not indicate that the Treasury might be selling prematurely and at the wrong price?

I am amazed that the Minister has agreed to underwrite a further £150 million of the buyers’ payments? I have heard of vendor financing, but agreeing to accept £150 million of debt so deeply subordinated as to be basically unsellable takes the biscuit. Is it not possible that the subsidy will be regarded as further state aid, and is he presumably seeking EU Commission approval for that? Will he at least guarantee that the Treasury will receive a payment every year on that £150 million, and that we will get it all back by the end of this Parliament?

The coalition agreement promised to promote mutuals and financial services, yet no apparent consideration was given to the mutualisation of Northern Rock. Why did Ministers not try harder to develop that option? Will the Minister publish the analysis on the basis of which they dismissed a member buy-out? The concerns about the decision to run down £250 million of Northern Rock’s capital reserves are not just an issue for the taxpayer; they also reduce Northern Rock and Virgin Money’s ability to provide significant credit in a market crying out for mortgage finance. Despite the new owners’ reported assurances, there are no contractual guarantees that branches or jobs will be retained. Savers in Northern Rock will also need reassurance that their new bank’s depleted capital reserves will not bring repeated anxieties if another banking crisis occurs.

The Chancellor opposed the original decision to rescue Northern Rock, saying:

“I am not in favour of nationalisation, full stop.”—[Official Report, 19 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 186.]

Is this not a golden opportunity for him to hold up his hands and admit that he made a mistake, and do not the growing question marks lingering over this giveaway deal also suggest that his judgment is as wrong now as it was then?

[Mr Hoban]

That was a lame response to my statement. The previous Government presided over the failure of financial regulation and an irresponsible banking culture that led to the collapse of Northern Rock. Now we have to deal with their legacy, and that includes the agreement that they struck with the European Commission requiring Northern Rock to be sold by 2013. Given the hand we were dealt by the previous Government, we had to do three things: get the best deal for the taxpayer, for the consumer and for Northern Rock and the north-east. The deal that we announced last week did just that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about proceeds. As we have said, this is a one-off transaction, and the proceeds will go towards paying down the debt. He asked whether it would have been better to hold on to Northern Rock longer. The reality is that Northern Rock is currently loss-making, and it is expected to make losses in the first part of next year. The best outcome for Northern Rock is to be acquired by somebody who wants to use the base in Gosforth to expand the business and offer a better deal to consumers and the staff of Northern Rock. David Fleming, the Unite trade union official, said:

“The treasury’s decision to sell Northern Rock to Virgin Money marks a significant moment in the history of this north-east based financial institution. After three years of turmoil and upheaval for the workforce at Northern Rock, Unite hopes that today will be the start of a secure future.”

Let me deal with Virgin Money’s capital position, which the hon. Gentleman raised. Virgin Money has clearly set out to be a strong and dependable partner. Its core tier 1 capital ratio is 15%, which is much higher than that of many existing high street banks, which averages about 10%. Of course the FSA will approve the capital structure and will have to give its approval of the transfer of ownership, and hon. Members should welcome that support.

On mutualisation, I made it clear, as did the Chancellor, that we were open to offers from existing mutuals to buy Northern Rock for a stand-alone remutualisation, but no firm bids were made in the final round. No one came forward with a well worked-out plan on how Northern Rock could be remutualised on a stand-alone basis, and that is why we took the decision we did. It was in the best interests of the taxpayer, the consumer, the north-east and Northern Rock to sell the business to Virgin Money.

Credit Institutions and Investment Firms

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman’s work on the European Scrutiny Committee has been useful in respect of the proposals before us, and it would have been helpful if the Minister had clarified where we stand in terms of qualified majority voting versus any veto options that we might have. I would be grateful if the Minister could set them out.

[Mr Hoban]

The regulation and the directive would come in through QMV.

[Chris Leslie]

Which proves the point that we need to ensure that we negotiate firmly.

The motion before us is worded correctly. It focuses very much on subsidiarity, and on article 443 and the proposals that would give the Commission the right to vary national regulations, even though it would prevent member states from changing their own rules beyond the maximum harmonisation arrangements—a step, I believe, too far. I agree with the draft reasoned opinion and, therefore, with the motion that the Clerk of the House forward this view to the presidents of the European institutions.

Article 443 does indeed go too far, and it would not be appropriate. Paragraph 18 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report sums that up well, stating there is no evidence to prove that

“the Commission is better placed than the competent authorities of Member States to address national prudential concerns. Indeed, there is a strong argument to say that national authorities are not only better placed, but can react more quickly than the Commission can by means of delegated legislation, thereby enhancing financial stability.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

This has been a helpful and thoughtful debate, and it will give the Government immense support in making the arguments over the coming months about the need to get CRD IV right; about recognising that it should be the responsibility of competent authorities in member states to set appropriate levels of bank capital beyond high minimum standards; and about the fact that we need the flexibility to do so in order to protect the stability of our financial system. That recognises the fact that banking structures and systems vary between member states. The complexity of those banking systems manifests itself in the extraordinary length of the document before us. These are complex issues that we need to tackle.

I want to make a point about engagement with Europe, picking up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about trade bodies. The same comments were made to the Treasury Select Committee today. There is nothing new about regulators co-ordinating the views of others when representing the UK on regulatory bodies. At the moment, the Financial Services Authority is our representative on the European Securities and Markets Authority, and in its representative role, the FSA must also reflect the views of other regulatory bodies not represented on ESMA. For example, it must take into account and reflect the views of the Financial Reporting Council and, on takeovers and mergers, the Takeover Panel.

Furthermore, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority has to represent the views of the Pensions Regulator. If I am right, at one point, the UK’s representative on EIOPA’s predecessor body, the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors, was not the FSA, but the Pensions Regulator itself. There is nothing new, therefore, about one body representing the views of other regulators in the UK on these European bodies, and it would be wrong to suggest that this is something novel or different.

We need to ensure that, under the new regulatory architecture, we are clear about who speaks for the UK on these matters. On the European Banking Authority and EIOPA, the Prudential Regulation Authority speaks for the UK, so it will want to gather the views of the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority on insurance issues, for example. It is clear that the FCA will represent the UK on the board of ESMA, and it will have to gather the views not only of the FRC and the Takeover Panel, as it does now, but of the Bank of England, on clearing houses, and the PRA on prudential issues relating to securities firms.

I do not therefore see this as some great novelty or innovation. It needs to work. However, surely no one in the House is suggesting that UK regulatory bodies should be driven by what is happening in Europe, rather than meeting the needs of businesses and consumers in the UK. I do not think that anyone is seriously suggesting that we have sectoral regulation in the UK, rather than functional regulation. If the Opposition want to go down the former route, let them say so, but we should find a way of ensuring that the current system works.

[Chris Leslie]

What is the Financial Secretary’s assessment of the British Bankers Association’s suggestion for a properly resourced international secretariat to ensure a better single interface with those European institutions? He might be right that we should not necessarily follow those European arrangements, but surely he accepts that a complex existing arrangement could be made even more complex by the proliferation of financial regulatory bodies that he is proposing.

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman has just recommended such a proliferation of bodies—with this co-ordinating secretariat. The PRA and the FCA are more than capable of talking to each other about these matters. We need to ensure that they gather people’s views and that the interests of the FRC and the Pensions Regulator are reflected. However, I do not consider it to be the huge problem that he is inflating it to be.

It is also the case, of course, that the negotiation of level 1 instruments, such as the directive before us today, is the responsibility not of the PRA, the FCA or the Bank of England, but of Her Majesty’s Government and, in particular, the Treasury. It is very clear where the focus is; we do not seem to have any problem at all in co-ordinating the views of others for that process.

This has been a helpful debate. It will help strengthen the Government’s hand in negotiation with Brussels. It is very clear that it is not just the UK Government who believe that we should have the freedom to go further beyond minimum standards if necessary, and the freedom to set our own macro-prudential strategy. That is the view of the International Monetary Fund, the view of Jean-Claude Trichet and the view of Jacques de Larosière. There is a consensus around this. What is important, I think, is that the Commission listens to that consensus and takes the right action to enable member states to tackle financial stability. I am grateful for the support for this motion and commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House considers that the draft Regulation on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms (European Union Document No. 13284/11 and Addenda 1-4) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the Annex to Chapter 1 of the Forty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 428-xxxvii); and in accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the presidents of the European institutions.

Eurozone Crisis

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and his response to my statement. He is absolutely right: it was right for this country to stay out of the euro. That is the settled position of the coalition Government, and it is the right position to adopt. However, that was a decision that the people of this country made. It was not made under duress from other countries; it was a free choice that we made. On that basis, it is better for the Greeks to make their own decisions than for us to offer them advice.

My hon. Friend asked about contingency planning. He would expect every good Government to have plans in place to cover a range of eventualities, and this Government are well prepared for any eventuality.

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

The Minister should at least have the grace to admit that the reason we are not in the euro is because of decisions by the Labour Government.

Clearly there are major ramifications from the uncertainty in Greece. With the Greek Treasury due to refinance €8 billion on 19 December, time is of the essence. The Minister has told the House that UK banks have more than £2 billion of direct exposure to Greek sovereign debt, so what assurances did the Prime Minister seek from his Greek counterpart at last week’s summit about the implementation of that deal?

The market pressures on the Italian Government are now considerable. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Treasury is preparing for all eventualities? Will he confirm that UK banks have an estimated €10 billion of exposure to Italian sovereign debt? The Italian Government have been unable to agree a deal on structural reforms ahead of this week’s G20 meeting. While the UK has in the past offered bilateral loan aid to Ireland, clearly we would want to avoid being drawn into more significant loans to larger countries. Will the Minister therefore explain whether, in general, the Treasury will entertain support only via the IMF, or could bilateral loans be on the agenda on a case-by-case basis?

Does the Minister believe that the €1 trillion bail-out fund will be sufficient if other eurozone countries are drawn into the danger zone? Will the Greek referendum delay the establishment of the fund?

On the IMF, the Minister knows that many people are anxious to safeguard the interests of British taxpayers, and it would be wrong for the British people to pay twice over—through temporary, ongoing EU funds and the IMF. Does he therefore agree that the eurozone should not rely principally on IMF money for the bail-out and that there can be no excuses for eurozone countries not putting up their own resources? If we are to see a full and permanent euro bail-out fund, we agree that our role should be through the IMF, but what does the Treasury expect will be the scale and timing of any further increases in IMF funds for the eurozone, however they are described?

Finally, with our own growth so weak and with unemployment rising, the Chancellor must surely be regretting his claim that the UK is a “safe haven”. When will the Government take urgent steps to bolster the strength of our own economy to insulate us properly from this international turbulence? Is it not now abundantly obvious we need an immediate plan to boost jobs and growth here in the UK and across Europe? What will the Prime Minister be proposing to boost growth when he meets his G20 colleagues? The Government continue to play a dangerous ideological game, but it is time that they stepped up to the mark and opted instead for a proper strategy for jobs and growth.

[Mr Hoban]

Let me first tackle this issue of who kept us out of the euro. The fact that a previous Conservative Government secured an opt-out from the Maastricht treaty meant that we were not going to join the euro. Also, one of the things that we did when we came into office last May was to close down the euro preparations unit in the Treasury. We are taking action on contingency planning for a whole range of outcomes, and that work is under way in the Treasury.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether work would be put on hold on the three legs of the deal that was agreed last week. It is important that the euro area continues to work on those three legs, particularly on the ring fence and on the recapitalisation of the banks. They are important parts of the package, and they are needed to ensure that the eurozone is stabilised. He talked about the various European mechanisms that are in place to support finance. He will remember that the Greek bail-out was originally paid for purely by the eurozone; the UK did not contribute to it and has not contributed to subsequent parts of the bail-out package for Greece. We have negotiated that when a permanent mechanism is put in place to replace the one that the previous Government signed us up to, which we do have to contribute to, that permanent mechanism will not require UK participation. That is an achievement of this Government, getting us out of the mess that the Labour Government put us into in May last year.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the IMF. He will have to remember that it was he who led opposition to increasing our subscription to the IMF—[Interruption.] He says that that was to safeguard Britain’s subscription to the IMF, but it would in fact have marginalised the UK in international debates on tackling the global economic problems that we face today. Labour should think very carefully about its repudiation of the legacy left to it by the previous Prime Minister, who agreed to a trebling of resources for the IMF. We need to take action to stabilise the situation in the eurozone. The uncertainty is casting a chilling effect on the UK economy, and it is important that those issues are tackled as soon as possible.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The problem is that we should have not either/or, but both. The bank levy and the banker bonus tax would be a fair contribution from the banking sector—[Interruption.] The Minister disagrees, but that is his opinion. The OBR says that the yield of a bonus tax could be £3.5 billion, but even a conservative estimate of, say, £2 billion would mean significant money that could eat into youth unemployment.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

Will the Minister say why he disagrees with the bank bonus tax?

[Mr Hoban]

I will make my remarks in my own time, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues stood on a manifesto that rejected the bank levy. It is a bit rich for him now to talk of having both a bank levy and a bonus tax, because at the last election he and his colleagues rejected both ideas.

[Chris Leslie]

Let us assume that the Minister is mistaken in his understanding of the Labour manifesto; I certainly would not accuse him of twisting our hope of an international agreement on a bank levy. Many countries are adopting the bank levy idea, and it is often much higher than the one we are pursuing. The Opposition believe that the bank levy is important, and we support it as it is, but—

[Mr Hoban]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

The question the Minister must answer is this: why is he taking no action at all on banker bonuses, and specifically on repeating the previous Government’s banker bonus? Why does he refuse to do that?

[Mr Hoban]

May I just remind the hon. Gentleman what the Labour party said on the bank levy when it was in government? It said that it should be

“coordinated internationally to avoid jeopardizing the UK’s competitiveness”.

The previous Government were not even thinking about a bank levy—they ruled it out. They said that we should not set the tone of the international debate. This Government have had the courage to do so. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised our willingness to take that tough decision to raise more money from the banks than the previous Government raised from their bank payroll tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman should be patient. I am just warming to my topic. I have much more to say about the bank levy and about amendment 31 on the Robin Hood tax. There is an issue about the need to reform the banking sector and the coalition Government decided to look at the structure of banking, which the previous Government failed to do. We want to tackle issues around the resolvability of banks and to look at how we can make the banking system much more stable. The measures we are taking forward will tackle some of the issues.

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I think I am being tempted away from the bank levy, but I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who might just come back to the topic.

[Chris Leslie]

It is very gracious of the Minister to give way.

On the so-called progress the Minister is making on banking reform, can he tell us what progress he has made on the transparency of banker bonuses? That is a critical point. How many other Finance Ministers, worldwide or in Europe, has he spoken to and when will the transparency element of the legislation be triggered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to try to wind up the debate because there are other important matters to be discussed this evening.

On Government amendments 32 to 50, since our proceedings in Committee, it has been brought to our attention that in one area the Bill as drafted may not fully achieve the intended policy ambition. These are the rules relating to netting and in particular the rules concerning multi-lateral netting agreements in groups. These are essentially agreements that allow different members of the same banking group to enter into a net settlement agreement with the same counterparties.

We have sought as a public policy objective to ensure that banks should be able to net off certain liabilities against assets, and that the levy is charged only on the remaining balance of liabilities. The amendments clarify the purpose of the Bill and ensure that the netting rules apply so that some banks are not adversely affected. We want to make sure that we keep the provisions under review. That is why we have put into the amendments a power to allow the Treasury to amend the rules applying to netting arrangements.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East asked whether there would be an impact on yield as a consequence of the amendments. There is no impact on yield, as the amendments reflect the policy objective that we have pursued.

In conclusion, we think it is right that banks should make a contribution reflecting the risks they pose to the UK financial system and the wider economy. That is why we introduced the bank levy. We expect the levy to raise more each and every year than the bank payroll tax did under the previous Government. All the Opposition have to offer in the debate is a tax that did not work the first time round. We have put in place a clear strategy to reform the banking sector. I believe that the actions we are taking are right, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Opposition amendments.

[Chris Leslie]

I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on at least getting the debate on the financial transaction tax on the table. We on the Front Bench also want to keep it on the table. It is appalling that the Government have ruled it out. My hon. Friend and I have already spoken about how we should revisit the issue in future legislative opportunities. The Front-Bench team has a qualm about the fact that the amendment does not mention sufficiently the need for international agreement on the subject, but broadly we agree that the matter needs to be taken forward. Unfortunately, we will not be supporting his amendment on this occasion, but it is an important topic which we must keep under review and keep a close eye on as it develops.

My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) highlighted the fact that there is no good reason for the Government’s inaction on bonuses. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke about the massive blow to the self-esteem that young people in particular feel, and the sense of their role in society and of their value that they lose, if they do not have the opportunity of jobs and employment.

The Minister says that our amendment 13, which would repeat a bank bonus levy, is unnecessary and counterproductive. The Government seem content with the lack of transparency on bonuses. They are happy with high and growing remuneration for executive bankers. They think the banks are paying a fair share, and they scoff at the £2 billion that could be raised by a tax on bank bonuses. We feel that the public disagree with the Government. The amendment would be a fair approach and it would help to create employment. That is why I urge the House to support amendment 13.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, because it is important that we engage with the Government properly on this agenda. We are still waiting for that report, although I hope that new clause 11 has been framed in such a way as to be pretty harmless and to command widespread support. Ultimately, all that we are looking for is a review of the circumstances; and indeed, some of the tax measures that may need to be included—although they may not—would not currently be part of the arrangements that I understand her hon. Friends are reviewing. New clause 11 is simply about ensuring the widest possible capability for those policy levers that the Government would be able to consider. There are so many measures necessary to help protect the consumer. They include not just action on payday lending or interest rates, for example, but the support needed for financial literacy education—something to which the Government have regrettably taken the axe, by terminating the £26 million financial inclusion fund. That decision is a particular regret, given that it will hit citizens advice bureaux up and down the country, along with other face-to-face advice agencies. Indeed, the financial inclusion fund was an essential bit of seedcorn funding, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification about its future.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

There is no need for clarification: if the hon. Gentleman had done his research properly, he would know that the Government have extended the funding for debt advice for a further year, and it is the intention that the Money Advice Service—which is funded by the financial services industry—will take on that work.

[Chris Leslie]

I did indeed know of the hon. Gentleman’s announcement of some time ago—not quite a full year yet. We are now into July, and the funding is due to run out next April, expiring at the beginning of the financial year 2012-13. Many advice agencies are quite anxious about what will fill the gap. It is clear that he has kicked the issue to the Money Advice Service, although we do not yet know what its approach will be. One crucial point is whether it will be interested in face-to-face advocacy and supporting such activity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Her Majesty’s Treasury and BIS have joint responsibility for this matter, which is why we issued a joint call for evidence. As I said, the consultation includes gathering further thoughts on the five areas from the OFT review.

The Government will respond to the review in the coming weeks and we are still assessing the evidence that has been provided. I can tell the House that a number of responses have been received on introducing a cap on interest rates, including from Members of this House. This is clearly an area that we will consider properly and carefully. We have been clear that we are not afraid to take action where there is evidence of consumer detriment.

I turn to the new clause that was tabled by the shadow Chancellor and a number of hon. Members. It asks the Government to review the impact of all taxation measures on lenders who are seen to engage in high-cost lending. I appreciate that this may be a probing new clause. I pointed out in Committee that the new clause as then drafted would lead to the perverse outcome of forcing up the cost of credit. The new clause before us has similar defects and unintended consequences.

I will point out the defects first. It is the Office of Fair Trading that regulates consumer credit, not the FSA. I would have thought that a Member who is so proud of her reputation for doing the homework would have got that right. It is well known that the OFT regulates high-cost credit.

Secondly, unlike the new clause tabled in Committee, which focused on the bank levy, this new clause looks at tax measures that are applicable to high-cost credit lenders. It would require each tax measure in the Budget to be assessed to see whether it is applicable. I listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Nottingham East and for Walthamstow—she is probably tweeting about this as we speak—to find out what tax measures they had in mind. I did not hear a single tax proposal being put forward by Opposition Members. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that we should propose the measures. I have been listening carefully for any sensible tax proposals from Opposition Members, but I am yet to hear one.

My concern is that there is a degree of price elasticity for those who use high-cost credit. Such people pay for high rates on their borrowing. If we increased taxes on high-cost credit, the costs would be borne by the borrowers through higher charges and the benefit would be gained by the Exchequer. That would run counter to the interests of those who use high-cost credit.

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

This is an embarrassment of riches. I will go for the hon. Gentleman, who I think is in charge of this new clause.

[Chris Leslie]

If taxes and levies are invariably passed on to the consumer, will the Minister elaborate on the banking levy? Presumably he feels that that, too, will be passed straight through to the consumer. Are there not other tax measures that disincentivise or demerit activities?

[Mr Hoban]

There are a number of taxes that disincentivise certain activities. We could be here all day identifying them. The challenge is to what extent an increase in tax is passed on to the consumer and to what extent it is borne by the shareholders. There is a lot of evidence that in areas where borrowers are relatively insensitive to price, such as payday lending, the additional costs of tax measures would be passed on to the consumer. I am yet to be persuaded that that would not be the case. It might help if the Opposition had some concrete proposals on tax that could be assessed, but so far they have not. Perhaps the hon. Member for Walthamstow has a proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The provision of better education, information and guidance to help people manage their money is extremely valuable. That is why we have been very supportive of the Money Advice Service in its work to help improve financial capability and capacity.

Sustainable solutions to the issues raised by the Opposition are not simple or obvious. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said, an individual making the minimum repayment on their credit card could be subject to a higher total cost of credit than someone using payday lenders. The vast majority of people who borrow from payday lenders and then re-borrow pay off the amount that they borrowed by the third time. That shows that careful and considered thought needs to be given to the impact on consumers of a cap on the total cost of credit, and how it would be implemented in practice. The majority of available research focuses on interest rate restrictions rather than such a cap, but some of the same challenges apply.

We need to gather evidence before we introduce new rules, or else risk unintended consequences. That was why we launched the consumer credit and personal insolvency review, and we are considering carefully the evidence that has been provided. The Government will announce the next stage shortly, and are committed to taking action when we can be sure that it will be effective. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), and I will continue to engage in the matter, along with the hon. Member for Walthamstow. However, I am afraid the new clause is not the right way to take things forward. It is flawed in both detail and effect. We need sensible, well-thought-through interventions to improve the functioning of high-cost credit markets and get better outcomes for consumers. The new clause would not achieve that, and I ask the Opposition to withdraw it.

I know that it cannot be easy for the Opposition to work with the Government on this issue and appear to concede on the new clause. It could seem like a climbdown for them to accept that more work is needed before action is taken, but that is the sensible, responsible approach.

[Chris Leslie]

I am sorry that the Financial Secretary has taken that attitude to the new clause, which is pretty innocuous in calling for a review. We have not put specific proposals in it, because we thought that in the spirit of cross-party working it would be useful to set up provisions to allow the Treasury and the OFT, working together in harmony, to work through the options and possible policy devices. Asking for a review on an extremely serious issue such as this is a bit like motherhood and apple pie; it really should not be objected to.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My right hon. Friend highlights the need for private sector involvement, and he will know that Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy agreed this weekend that there should be voluntary and private sector involvement in resolving the Greek debt. Some very strong accountability is attached to any future financial support for the Greek economy: a tough programme of privatisation, and structural reforms to improve its competitiveness. I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that although it is right that there should be private sector involvement, it is not in our interests for there to be huge turmoil in our largest trading partner, the European Union.

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

Clearly, it is vital and in all our interests that sustainable resolutions are agreed for Greek debt financing, but surely the Government must recognise that there needs to be a smarter approach than simply piling more and more austerity on Greece. What is the Financial Secretary’s response to those, including Boris Johnson, who said yesterday that

“austerity measures are making the economy worse”

in Greece?

Why does the Financial Secretary allow the EU to procrastinate continually and to kick a solution on the bail-out mechanism into the distance repeatedly? He says that the EFSM has not yet been used. The European Council meets at the end of this week. Will the Government ensure that they grasp the nettle this time, and make sure that a permanent eurozone-only bail-out mechanism comes into force as soon as possible rather than pushing it back again? Will he give assurances that the UK will attend any future meetings, which could involve the use of EFSM, even if they are eurozone Finance Minister meetings, because the UK’s empty-chair policy clearly is not working?

Given that the Financial Secretary tabled a little-noticed Commons motion last week to double the UK’s subscription to the IMF from £10.5 billion to £19.7 billion, was not the Foreign Secretary being disingenuous when he said on “Sky News” earlier that

“any such support for Greece is for the eurozone and for the IMF, not for the UK”?

Britain will end up paying more for the Greek bail-out via the IMF, so will the Financial Secretary come clean and say what he estimates our share of IMF bail-out costs will be for our taxpayers? Surely Ministers should pull their fingers out and ensure that the EU makes some final decisions on all that. Is not it about time that the Government showed some leadership?

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman continues to amaze me with his remarks. He seems to forget the role that his Government played in setting up the EFSM. The Conservative party has delivered a commitment to ensure that it is replaced with a permanent mechanism—one matter that will be discussed at the European Council later this week.

It is clear that we do not want to be part of a bail-out of the Greek economy and that we do not want the EFSM to be used. The fact that we are outside the Eurogroup sends a clear signal that it does not expect us to participate in that bail-out. Of course, Madame Lagarde, the French Finance Minister, made it clear last month when she appeared on “Newsnight” that she thought that the resolution for Greece was a matter for the eurozone only.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in the IMF commitment. Of course, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), committed to doubling the resources available for the IMF at the April 2009 G20 summit in this country. I am surprised that hon. Members have such short memories of those matters.

Regulatory and Banking Reform

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

It is now well known that the tripartite system set up by the last Government failed spectacularly in its mission to maintain stability. The decision to divide responsibility for assessing systemic financial risks between three institutions meant that, in reality, no one took responsibility. The crisis dramatically exposed that flaw and cost the taxpayer a vast amount of money. We cannot allow another crisis such as the one we have just witnessed. Shortly after taking office, this Government set in train a consultation on reforming our system of financial regulation. Today, after two extensive rounds of consultation, I am presenting to the House a White Paper, including draft legislation, setting out the blueprint for a completely new system of regulation. Let me summarise the main proposals.

A permanent Financial Policy Committee will be established within the Bank of England. Its job will be to monitor overall risks in the financial system, to identify bubbles as they develop, to spot dangerous inter-connections and to stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. It has already started operating on an interim basis and is having its first formal meeting today. Subject to legislative process, the permanent body will be in place by the end of next year.

We will abolish the Financial Services Authority in its current form and transfer its significant prudential functions to a new Prudential Regulatory Authority that will sit in the Bank of England. The Prudential Regulatory Authority will focus on microprudential regulation and will bring judgment to the vital task of regulating the soundness of individual firms that manage risk on their balance sheet, particularly banks and insurance companies. We recognise, of course, that such firms engage in very different businesses, which is why we are proposing to provide the PRA with a specific statutory objective for its insurance responsibilities.

We are also bringing in a new approach to protecting consumers. A financial conduct authority will oversee the conduct of financial services firms, the operation of markets and the protection of consumers, with new powers to ban the sale of toxic products. I can confirm that as an integral part of its mission to secure better outcomes for consumers and investors, the authority will also have a new duty to promote competition. Judgment, discretion and proactive intervention will be the hallmark of our new regulators.

We are bringing forward the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, for which a Joint Committee of both Houses will shortly be convened. We are seeking valuable input from Members on both sides of the House as it is in all our interests to get this right.

Last week, we also established under Sir John Vickers an Independent Commission on Banking to resolve the debate about the structure of the banking sector in the UK. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Sir John and his fellow commissioners for the excellent job they are doing. The commission’s interim report made two particularly important proposals: bail-in, not bail-out, so that private investors, not taxpayers, bear the losses when things go wrong; and a ring fence around better capitalised high street banks to make them safer and protect their vital services to the economy if things go wrong. I can confirm that the Government agree in principle with both proposals.

Of course, we will await the commission’s final report, but I can tell the House that any reforms will need to meet the following principles: all banks should be allowed to fail safely without affecting vital banking services, without imposing costs on the taxpayer, through reforms that are applicable across our whole banking industry and in a manner consistent with EU and international law. I can also confirm today that we welcome the commission’s recommendations on increasing competition in retail banking and we are working closely with it to achieve this aim.

We are also taking the first steps towards normalising the Government’s involvement in the financial sector. One legacy of the crisis is that today’s taxpayers have a direct interest in several banks through large-scale guarantees and shareholdings. We do not believe the Government should be a long-term investor in financial institutions. It will take some time—possibly several years—before we can make a complete exit from our investments in the banks, but today I can confirm the start of that process.

On the advice of UK Financial Investments, we have decided to launch a sale process for Northern Rock. This follows extensive work over the past three months to consider potential options for returning Northern Rock to the private sector while generating the best possible taxpayer value. The sale process will be open and transparent and in line with state aid rules. I have already written to the chair of the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), to reassure him that any interested parties can bid for it, including mutuals. This reaffirms the Government’s commitment actively to promote the mutuals sector. That does not mean that other options to return Northern Rock to the private sector have been ruled out, but I believe that at this point in time a sale process is the most promising.

I also want to make the House aware that following an application by the Bank of England to the High Court today, Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company Ltd, a very small bank, has been placed into the bank insolvency procedure. That follows a decision by the FSA that Southsea no longer satisfied its threshold conditions for operating as a deposit taker. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has been triggered and eligible depositors with balances up to the limit of £85,000 are safeguarded. Eligible depositors with amounts in excess of the insured limit of £85,000 may be entitled to receive a share of their savings above this limit as part of the insolvency process.

Finally, I want to update the House on the ongoing negotiations on international financial regulation. When I was in Brussels yesterday, my message was clear. We must learn the lessons of the crisis and create the foundations for stable and sustainable economic growth without fragmenting global markets. That is why global standards are in our national interest. Much of the debate has focused on the implementation of Basel III and we have been busy making the case for implementing it in full right around the world, including here in Europe. Last week’s International Monetary Fund assessment supported our arguments for minimum standards here in the EU, with discretion for national authorities to increase them where necessary.

When the coalition Government came into office, questions were being asked about the future of banking and regulation but they had not been answered. It has been our job to resolve them. Our goal should be a new settlement between our financial system and the British people; a new settlement where the banks support the people, instead of the people bailing out the banks. The statement today sets out the progress we have made towards building this new settlement and the actions we are taking to complete it and I commend the statement to the House.

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

What utter contempt the Government are showing to Parliament by announcing these major proposals first to the bankers in the City yesterday and only today to elected representatives. Time and time again, Ministers give policy speeches outside this place and the House of Commons is merely an afterthought. Why is the Chancellor not here to make these announcements today?

That total disregard for the democratic process is reflected in the draft legislation, which hands vast new powers over the lives of all our constituents to the unelected Bank of England and leaves a gaping accountability deficit, with no mention of parliamentary accountability in all its 408 pages. Why are Ministers still so sketchy about the detail of these new powers for the Bank of England, with nothing on the face of the Bill, and is it true that there may be no further clarity on the toolkit for the Financial Policy Committee until next year?

Why is there still no clarity about the crisis management memorandum? Why have the Government not yet published the consolidated Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 draft for Parliament to see? Why is there no clarity about where consumer credit regulation will fit into this alphabet spaghetti of new quangos? Why are they still fumbling around with the composition of the Financial Policy Committee? Why have they failed to negotiate the flexibility needed from the European Union and the European banking regulators to ensure that all these new UK structures are allowed discretion to use the macro-prudential tools in the first place?

There will be significant concern, especially in the Portsmouth area, about the news on the Southsea mortgage bank—Southsea is perhaps a name that resonates in other ways—but we will need to watch developments closely.

Although there are clear inadequacies in the proposals published today, we will consider them carefully, and there are areas where we agree with the Government. The Chancellor is right that this was not a financial crisis made in Britain. It was caused by a failure in the banking industry in every major financial centre and a global failure in banking regulation. Families and businesses worldwide have paid a heavy price for the irresponsible actions of the banks, but Governments and regulators failed to see this coming and we in the Opposition must accept our part in that. Thankfully, however, we ignored the advice of the Chancellor, who called for lighter regulation and opposed the previous Labour Government’s decisions to step in to prevent financial catastrophe by nationalising Northern Rock and Royal Bank of Scotland and by cutting VAT to get the recovery moving.

Today’s announcement vindicates the rescue measures taken by my right hon. Friends at the time and shows that taxpayers always had a good chance of recouping the lion’s share of the sums involved. But on Northern Rock, can the Minister explain the haste in the sale? We hope he is not playing politics and rushing for a fire sale when a measured approach to maximising value and diversifying the banking system would be better. Why has the Treasury failed to consider mutualising Northern Rock and is the Minister really content to see it return to business as usual as yet another plc without exploring the benefits that a new building society might bring?

There are three tests by which the Chancellor and the Minister should be judged. First, are taxpayers and bank customers adequately protected from future bail- outs by the so-called firewalls in the bank structures? How can the Chancellor say he agrees with the conclusions of the Vickers Banking Commission before it has even published its final report?

Secondly, has the Minister secured sufficient international agreement on regulation and bank restructuring to secure a workable system protecting jobs here in Britain? Sadly, the Treasury has already shown a woeful lack of leadership internationally on pay transparency and bankers’ bonuses, which, by the way, should be taxed to pay for jobs and businesses here at home.

Thirdly, will we end up with a banking system that delivers the goods for our economy as a whole? Are small businesses getting the bank loans they need and why is Project Merlin already unravelling with confusion between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury over so-called “stretch” targets, or capacity targets, how they are going to be enforced and whether the banks are really participating wholeheartedly? We need a diverse banking system, which should include a strong mutual sector—something that was promised in the coalition agreement but that the Government seem uninterested in delivering. We need clear and comprehensible regulatory structures with far clearer lines of accountability, and we need a Government who put customers, taxpayers and the real economy first.

[Mr Hoban]

That response clearly demonstrated the emptiness of the Opposition’s thoughts on these matters. They have had a year to consider whether these reforms are in the interests of strengthening financial regulation and whether they will strengthen the banking system, but here they are today, a year later, with no idea on the best way to proceed. That is not surprising given that the shadow Chancellor was a champion of light-touch regulation when he was the City Minister and he presented that argument not just in London but across the world. It is time for the Opposition to make their mind up: are they prepared to acknowledge the mistakes of the past and accept the tougher regulatory regime we have proposed, or are they going to cling to the legacy and wreckage of the previous Government’s financial regulation system?

Let me deal with one or two of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. It has been clear from the outset that one of the roles of the interim Financial Policy Committee, which is meeting formally for the first time this afternoon, is to provide advice to the Treasury on the macro-prudential tools that it believes would be appropriate for the FPC. Until the interim FPC has concluded its work it is very difficult to give the House information on that, but what we are doing in the Bill is making sure there is a process in place to ensure there is consultation and that there is discussion in the House. Those tools will not be given to the Bank until we have gone through a legislative process in this place.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Northern Rock. As someone who was born and brought up the north-east, I understand his concern and the importance of Northern Rock to the regional economy. We have, as part of our review, considered remutualisation and our financial adviser Deutsche Bank is reporting to UK Financial Investments on Northern Rock. The advice is to proceed in the first instance with a sale option and the option of remutualisation has been explored with Co-operatives UK and the Building Societies Association, which commissioned the report by Professor Michie. The final decision will be judged against such other options as an initial public offering or a stand-alone remutualisation, but I remind the Opposition that it is important to secure taxpayers’ interests, as we have invested £1.4 billion in Northern Rock.

On the Independent Commission on Banking, we have indicated that we would support the proposal, but we have said that we want to see the final proposal that Sir John Vickers makes. We have dealt with an issue that the previous Government failed to tackle. They closed down the topic of whether there were some structural issues in the UK banking sector that put taxpayers at risk. They were not prepared to confront that debate, but this Government have been prepared to do that and to take some serious and difficult decisions on that matter.

On the issue of bank lending, it is all very well the hon. Gentleman preaching, but the previous Government did not in any way attempt to get the big banks together to talk about increasing lending to small businesses. As the banking sector and the economy deleverage, it is important that those businesses seeking finance have that opportunity. That is why we secured commitments from the banks, and they are held to account on the published targets that were announced earlier this year. The package of measures we have announced demonstrates the progress we are making towards a new settlement on financial regulation and banking, and it is a pity that the Opposition are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities and take part in this debate.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

If my right hon. Friend will be patient with me, I want to respond to some of the important points raised by a number of Members who have contributed to the debate. If I have time at the end, I will take interventions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said that taxpayers had contributed £12.5 billion to bail out euro area states, but that is simply not the case. Let me explain why. The European financial stability mechanism is funded by the European Commission borrowing from capital markets, and it is only in the event that a beneficiary member state defaults that the EU budget, and so the UK, will be called upon to contribute. The UK does not fund the EFSM, which is a contingent liability. Not a single pound of taxpayers’ money has gone into the EFSM. On Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has said, we have made a loan, not a gift or a grant, and we expect to get our money back. Not a penny of the money that we have saved through spending cuts has been used to make that loan.

Let me go back to the events of a year ago. Europe faced a crisis, with concerns about the stability of Greece, and in the May ECOFIN meeting the EFSM and the EFSF were created. They were created at the height of the Greek crisis, in exceptionally turbulent conditions, before the Government took office. Markets were increasingly questioning the EU’s response to the situation. Indeed, there were fears about the stability of the entire euro area and the risk of contagion was real and dangerous. European Finance Ministers decided to create a broader package to restore confidence and stability. ECOFIN agreed to establish the EFSM and at the same time euro area Finance Ministers agreed to create the much bigger EFSF, which is backed entirely by euro area countries and does not create any liability for the UK.

It is worth reminding hon. Members that, although the Greek crisis triggered the creation of the new mechanism, the EFSM was not used by Greece. The Greek rescue package was financed by the IMF and a series of bilateral loans between individual euro area member states and the Greek Government.

The EFSM was agreed at ECOFIN by qualified majority voting and before this Government took office, and Cabinet Office protocol was followed throughout. At the time, in a conversation with his predecessor, the current Chancellor made his views on the EFSM clear and cautioned against committing the UK to proposals that would have a lasting effect on the UK’s public finances. Members need not take my words for it; the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) gave his recollection of the conversation to the House on 15 December 2010:

“I discussed with the Chancellor what we should do about the financial stability mechanism. He had his reservations and stated very clearly that he was against deploying it”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 954.]

That exactly matches the account given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

[Chris Leslie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hoban]

No. As I said earlier, I want to make some progress on the matter.

My right hon. Friend was also clear that, in the days prior to the formation of the coalition, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West was still the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the UK in a dynamic negotiating environment, and it was for him to reach that decision.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) quoted an extract from an explanatory memorandum, and yes there was consensus between the parties about the process, but not about the outcome—as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his statement to the House in December. It was a matter for the previous Chancellor to decide, and he was the man occupying the office at the time.

Some of my hon. Friends have today articulated concerns about the use of article 122. The EFSM was created following agreement by a qualified majority of member states at the ECOFIN meeting on 9 May 2010, and the terms of the mechanism are set out in an EU Council regulation. It is based on article 122 and states:

“Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional circumstances beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned.”

The Council decided that in those circumstances those criteria applied.

Several hon. Members have raised the issue of article 125 of the treaty, the so-called “no bail-out” clause, but article 125 does not preclude member states from providing loans to one another, and, as evidence of that, the EU’s balance of payments facility has already provided medium-term financial assistance to a number of member states.

Over the past year, we have had to deal with the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have made sure that the permanent arrangements to sort out the euro area are the ultimate responsibility of euro area member states.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that his goal at last December’s European Council, where he secured two significant victories for the UK. First, he made sure that article 122 could not be used for euro area bail-outs in the future. Secondly, he ensured that the UK would not have to contribute to the European stabilisation mechanism, the permanent mechanism that will replace the EFSM and the EFSF. As the Prime Minister said, we have a good “belt and braces” approach—a no need, no use approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I cannot comment on the particular circumstances that my hon. Friend has raised, although I am happy to look at them more carefully. I am sure that she would welcome, as does the whole House, the commitment of banks to increase their capacity to lend to businesses of all sizes.

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

I wonder whether the Minister still thinks that Project Merlin was such a great deal with the big banks. Lending to small businesses continues to fall, while the charges for those loans are rising. The banks’ promise to support the big society bank looks less generous, as we learn that money will be lent only on commercial terms, and now we hear that Santander is pulling out of the business growth fund, which was a key plank of the deal. Is this a failure of Project Merlin or a failure of the Government?

[Mr Hoban]

It is rather churlish of the hon. Gentleman to be critical of Project Merlin. When his party was in office it was able to secure lending commitments from only two banks. We have achieved a comprehensive package with all banks, including Santander, to increase the amount of money that they will lend to businesses, including small businesses. The business growth fund, which he also raised, is an opportunity for businesses to seek equity finance in a way that is currently not available and that meets the equity gap, which the previous Government did little to resolve.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend’s arguments become increasingly attractive, and he makes an important point. The bank bonus tax, which the previous Labour Government introduced, appeared at first to be modest, but in fact the yield was very significant indeed. Did the banks collapse as a result of the bonus levy? No. Did they all flee abroad to relocate somewhere else, as threatened? Absolutely not. So, too, with the continuing scale of the bonus pot, which has hardly changed at all, it is absolutely right that we look to reinstitute the levy this year, along with a decent bank levy, as we are discussing today.

Hon. Members will know that the concept of a bank levy was first developed at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009, and then championed by my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister and taken forward by the International Monetary Fund in its report, which aimed to encourage less risky funding to enhance financial stability. Two broad conclusions were reached at the Pittsburgh summit. There was a call for a financial activities tax, or financial transactions tax, which we need to debate another time when we consider some of the extra levies that might be put on activities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself still professes to be in favour of a financial activities tax, although he has done absolutely nothing to advocate it in ECOFIN or in other financial meetings around the world, so we will see whether anything comes of his repeated promises to pursue it.

The second prong of the IMF’s report was a financial stability contribution, otherwise known as a bank levy, to be charged on equities and liabilities rather than assets or profits because of the need to disincentivise dangerous potential charges such as those that landed on the taxpayer during the credit crunch. The bank levy is a sensible idea in theory, and we broadly support it. However, the yield suggested in the Bill—only £2.6 billion—is not just small but pathetic by international standards when compared with the rate being pursued in other countries. It is perplexing that Ministers settled on that figure, and there has never been any evidential basis published for why they did so. Will the Minister clarify why the Chancellor chose the figure of £2.6 billion, as that seems to be the pole around which all aspects of the bank levy revolve? If there is any sense in which the revenue might go beyond that envelope, the Treasury tweaks and turns down the dials on the other aspects of the levy to squeeze it back into that £2.6 billion of revenue—the predetermined level that it put out to consultation last summer, never explaining why it was set. Compared with the substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money put up in the bail-out of the banks—£76 billion of shares purchased in the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, £250 billion of guarantees, another £280 billion of other insurances, and a further £100 billion of annual implied subsidy, according to the Bank of England—a £2.6 billion bank levy is very puny.

It is interesting to look at the Treasury document that lists the respondents to the bank levy consultation. There were 44 respondents, all of which are major financial institutions.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

Did the hon. Gentleman respond?

[Chris Leslie]

I will respond to the Minister when I have heard his comments. If he wants me to respond again, I am more than happy to have Government time dedicated to the general principles of bank taxation.

The responses showed that the Treasury’s original design for the bank levy had a threshold that triggered payment of the levy for any organisations, institutions or banks with more than £20 billion of equity and liabilities. Ministers realised that that would yield £3.9 billion—nearly £1.5 billion more than the Treasury had expected—which, by the way, would be more than enough to reverse all their police funding cuts, for example. What did the Chancellor do when he realised that the Treasury’s own design for the bank levy could yield £3.9 billion? Did Ministers think that this might be something they should go ahead with? Absolutely not—they gave in, capitulated, and converted the threshold into a tax-free allowance of £20 billion. Hon. Members will know that the Liberal Democrats have long made great play of the increase in personal allowances, which is pretty much the only thing they are getting out of the coalition as they cling on to it, and there might be a few hundred pounds in that here and there. How about having a tax free allowance of £20 billion? That is what they have decided to give the banks. The banks now do not need to pay on their liabilities below that amount.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Amendment 9 seeks to require a report into the effectiveness of the new bank levy, which is introduced in clause 72. I will come to the components of the amendment shortly, but I think it would help hon. Members if I first explained the role and features of the levy.

The levy is a new tax that will ensure that the banks fairly contribute to the Exchequer, while encouraging them to move to less risky forms of funding. This levy forms part of the Government’s far-reaching plans for banking reform. We have already announced an overhaul of financial regulation, marking a break from the light-touch regime championed by the shadow Chancellor when he was the City Minister. We have created an Independent Commission on Banking, which published its interim report last month and is due to publish its final report in September.

When Labour Members were in government, they refused to debate the structure of the banking sector. They were afraid of banking reform and they were afraid to understand and tackle the lessons from the financial crisis. This debate would have been better if one of them had had the courage to accept the failures of the previous Government on the regulation of the banking sector. Not one of them did so. I think this whole debate is a cover for their bluster. When we proposed in March last year to introduce a bank levy, on a unilateral basis if necessary, Labour Members were against it. The then Chancellor was against it and the present leader of the Labour party, who wrote the Labour manifesto, was against it, too. What we have heard today is a whole load of bluster, rhetoric and empty words about how we must tax the banking sector properly when Labour Members lacked the courage to champion these moves when they were in government. We have taken the lead on the issue, when they would have hung back and waited for international consensus and agreement. We have taken the lead, as I say, and France and Germany have joined us in announcing levies. Others have since followed, including Hungary, Austria and Portugal.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) made great play of the various rates that other countries were introducing. Let me point out to him, then, that in France the levy is expected to raise only €500 million. In Germany, the levy is expected to raise €1 billion annually. The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the US on two occasions, but the US has not yet introduced legislation, so his comments are empty—

[Chris Leslie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hoban]

No, I am not going to give way. We have had quite a long debate already, and it is time we made some progress.

[Chris Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I understood that this was a Committee stage, and that we were considering the Bill in detail. Is it usual practice for a Minister responding to a debate not at least to give way and allow a dialogue on the clause in question?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to decide whether to give way, and I am sure that he heard the cries for him to do so.

[Mr Hoban]

Subsection (2)(a) of the amendment requires a report on

“the Government’s analysis behind the rate and threshold chosen for the bank levy”.

It might help Opposition Members if I explained how we designed the levy, and why we set the rate and threshold as we did. The levy is intended to ensure that the banking sector makes a fair and substantial contribution, reflecting the risks that it poses to the financial system and the wider economy. It is intended to encourage banks to move away from risky funding models, and complements the wider regulatory agenda to improve standards and enhance financial stability. During the crisis, it became clear that some banks had become over-reliant on short-term funding for long-term lending. When financial markets seized up, those banks were exposed.

I must emphasise that the levy is based on the liabilities of a bank, not on its assets. It is based on the bank’s deposits, its share capital and loans made to it, not on loans made by it. It applies to the global balance sheets of UK banks, building societies and banking and building society groups, and to the UK operations of banks from other countries.

In determining the scope of the levy, we concluded that foreign banks operating in the UK also posed potential risks to the UK financial system and the wider economy, whether they operated as branches or as subsidiaries. It therefore follows that they should contribute on the same basis, and branches and subsidiaries of foreign banking groups are included to ensure that they cannot avoid the levy by group restructuring. That will ensure the provision of a level playing field for all banks operating in the UK.

The levy will be paid by between 30 and 40 building societies and banking groups, and we have made it clear that we expect it to yield about £2.5 billion of revenues each year in its steady state. That appropriate contribution balances fairness with competitiveness, and the rates of the levy were chosen to allow it. We initially announced that a reduced rate would apply for 2011, recognising the uncertain market conditions prevailing at the time, but we no longer consider that to be necessary.

In December the Bank of England noted that the near-term outlook and resilience of the UK banking sector had improved. Markets also now have greater certainty about the timing and direction of regulatory change, with the Basel III regulatory reforms being introduced in 2013 and transition periods being extended to 2015. We therefore decided that from 1 March this year, the full rate of the levy should be introduced for 2011. The levy will now yield £2.5 billion in that year. The steady state target yield was set out last year, when we also announced our intention to make significant cuts in the main rate of corporation tax.

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I am going to continue my speech.

We were clear at that time, as we are now, that the bank levy yield far outweighs the benefits that banks receive from the corporation tax change. Other sectors will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but the banks will not benefit because of the levy. In the March Budget, the Chancellor went further in helping our economy to grow, and announced an additional 1p reduction in the main rate of corporation tax. At the same time, to offset the benefits to banks from that further cut and maintain the same incentives for them to move to less risky funding, we announced that the rate of the levy would increase from 1 January 2012, to 0.078%.

The threshold has prompted some discussion. The initial announcement on the bank levy last year proposed that it would include a threshold of £20 billion. However, as part of the subsequent consultation exercise, we explicitly sought views on whether it would be preferable to make it an allowance rather than an all-or-nothing threshold. A threshold would provide a cliff edge that banks would avoid by restructuring. Respondents to the consultation made that clear to us, and even suggested that banks, or indeed building societies, might avoid growing their UK operations to avoid the threshold and to avoid paying the levy. We accepted that argument, and have therefore decided that there should be an allowance on the first £20 billion of liabilities liable for the levy. That means that smaller banks, building societies and foreign banks with a small UK presence—that is, those whose liabilities are less than the £20 billion allowance—will not pay the levy.

The allowance will ensure that the levy is proportionate to the risks inherent in banking businesses of different sizes. It balances the probability that the failure of a bank could pose a systemic risk against the relative burden imposed in order to gather additional revenue at the margin. While size is not the sole factor in determining risk to the system, it is an important one. Increasing the allowance would risk excluding banks or building societies that are highly likely to pose a systemic risk if they fail. Similarly, setting the allowance at a lower level—which Opposition Members seem very keen on doing—would risk imposing an unnecessarily high burden on institutions that do not pose a systemic risk to the UK economy in the way that larger banking institutions do. These details, along with many others, have already been made public, and I am sure that the Opposition Members who tabled the amendment are aware of the steps the Government have taken to explain the basis of the decisions. All tax measures now have a tax information and impact note, which sets out clear information relating to the measure and its impact, and which has provided a significant amount of analysis on the levy so far. It is clear that there is no need for a report to provide an analysis of the rates and threshold of the bank levy.

Let me turn to the second element of the amendment.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Can the Minister remind the House what the OBR predicted the growth rate would be for the first quarter of 2011? I think it is on page 54 of the convergence programme.

[Mr Hoban]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not congratulated the Government on taking the tough action that put the recovery on track and made sure that we have lower interest rates than Greece, Ireland and Portugal. That is a consequence of the actions that we have taken—actions that the Opposition would not take. We are tackling the legacy that they left. The problem is that the scale of the legacy is huge. That makes the recovery challenging. Today’s figures demonstrate that we are making good progress on that.

To support the economy and to continue the growth in the private sector, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a new economic strategy as part of this year’s Budget. The strategy has four ambitions at its heart—that Britain will have the most competitive tax system in the G20; that it will be the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business; that it will be a more balanced economy, by encouraging exports and investment; and that it will have a more educated work force that is the most flexible in Europe. In pursuit of these objectives, we have announced further cuts to corporation tax, taking it down to 26% this year and 23% by the end of this Parliament.

This is alongside our decision to introduce a highly competitive tax rate on profits derived from patents and our fundamental reform of the complex rules for controlled foreign companies, making them much more territorial and making the UK a much more attractive place for businesses to locate, ensuring that we have a far more attractive tax system than either Germany or France.

This year’s Budget also deals directly with the challenge of education and youth unemployment, which has been rising steadily for the past seven years. Instead of 20,000 young people benefiting from our new work experience scheme, as we originally planned, we will increase that number fivefold to 100,000 places over the next two years. Although in Austria and Germany one in four employers offers apprenticeships, in England fewer than one in 10 does so. That must change.

That is why last year my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning published a skills strategy and confirmed the largest ever expansion in adult apprenticeships. At the Budget we committed to funding another 40,000 apprenticeships for young unemployed people. That brings a total of 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years, as a result of this Government’s policies. This will help to ensure that all parts of the country have access to a better educated work force.

This year’s Budget will help to create a more balanced economy, tackling the imbalances of the past that undermined the economy and led to the longest and deepest recession since the war. This year’s Budget gives support to the private sector and hope to those looking for work, and will stimulate job creation across Britain.

Financial Services (Rural Communities)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on securing this debate. There may have been relatively few participants in it, but the quality of contributions has been high, and Members have recognised the importance of the issue.

Access to financial services is not just a rural issue. On a Friday afternoon a couple of weeks ago, I responded to a debate secured by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on access to financial services in south-east London. There are some common strands, but the particular nature of rural communities creates an additional challenge that we need to reflect.

I shall respond to several points that were made before I cover most of the rest of the issues in a few brief remarks. On automated teller machines, it seems that hon. Members should be in Rhayader on a Friday night if the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is in town, since he is keen to ensure that he is able to get that tenner out of the cash point to buy us all a drink. He is right to highlight the fact that there is only one cash point in the town. He may be aware that since the report in December 2006 by a parliamentary working group on cash machines, LINK has received nominations for sites, particularly in low-income areas, for about 600 free cash machines. I encourage him to contact LINK directly to suggest that there is a need for one in his community.

My hon. Friend and several other hon. Members spoke about the future of the cheque, a matter which I take seriously. The previous Government turned a blind eye to the threat to the cheque. I have met the UK Payments Council and discussed with it the need to ensure that there is a viable alternative to the cheque before its operation ceases. I made it clear that that is a priority for this Government. It is not clear to me what the alternative would be, given the many qualities of cheques: they are easy to use, people are familiar with them and it is easy to post them. We wait to see what the council says, but I made it clear that it should proceed only if there is a viable alternative that is accepted by many of the groups that currently use cheques.

However, I add a note of caution. The diminishing use of cheques means that the cost per cheque is rising. Clearly, that cost has to be covered in some way, so no one should see cheques as an entirely free option.

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) spoke about Lloyds Banking Group’s plans by to divest itself of 600 branches. He may recollect that the European Commission made that a condition of state aid before signing off the significant investment that the previous Government made in bailing out Lloyds after its merger with HBOS. The Commission required Lloyds to make a significant divestment, and it is making progress on that. There is a great opportunity for that divestment to be used to create a new challenger to UK banks. None of the existing banks in the UK that have a share of the personal account market of more than 14% can buy those branches, so there is an opportunity for someone to become a challenger—to enter the market, buy the branches and provide competition. There is not enough competition in banking at present. A new challenger in the market would help ensure a better deal for consumers, and that banks focus much more on their customers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke about broadband services in rural areas, and how important it is to ensure that people in such areas have access to online banking. He will know that broadband is not a reserved policy, but work is being done through the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly on improving access to broadband.

In the spending review, we provided more than £500 million of funding for superfast broadband over the next four years, and some of that money can be used to pay for superfast broadband roll-out in areas that the market alone does not reach, including rural areas. The Welsh Assembly are now in discussions with Broadband Delivery UK on how its work will be supported in future.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are huge opportunities if we can roll out superfast broadband to rural communities. It will help tackle the digital divide and not just enable banking services to be more easily accessed by people in rural areas but create new wealth opportunities, and encourage economic growth and development in those areas.

My hon. Friend also spoke about the future of the Financial Inclusion Fund. I am pleased that the Government will make funding available to continue the face-to-face advice project until April 2012. However, we have been clear that the debt advice sector needs to be put on a more sustainable footing in the long term. There is considerable investment already through the Consumer Finance Education Body, which is looking at financial advice more broadly. We have asked it to take forward debt advice as part of its work of running the money advice service. That work will be funded not by the taxpayer but the financial services industry, which benefits most directly from good quality debt advice being available. He made an important point about access to advice.

[Chris Leslie]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I will, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion made points about face-to-face advice and issues in rural areas around accessing advice. Part of the challenge is to ensure that advice is available when people need it. Sometimes that is difficult, given that citizens advice bureaux and other providers operate at fixed opening times, but there are other ways. The Money Advice Trust runs an effective telephone helpline service, as does the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, and we need to look at online tools. It is important that we have a holistic approach to financial advice, and that is why I am keen that the CFEB takes this forward and provides a coherent view about how we provide advice to people, not just in urban areas but across the country.

[Chris Leslie]

I accept what the Minister says about online and telephone advice, but, on face-to-face advice, can he confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, the £27 million fund will not be available from April 2012 onwards? It is his decision that it will end next April.

[Mr Hoban]

The reality is that the previous Government expected the project to end at the end of this month—that was in their spending plan—but we have extended it for a further year. However, it is important that the financial services sector picks up the bill for it. It is important to integrate it as part of the CFEB—it is its responsibility to take it forward. Of course, we will work closely with that organisation and monitor it to ensure that it delivers that advice. It accepts that it is its responsibility to develop a model of debt advice that meets the needs of people across this country. That is an important goal for that body. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) was not around in the last Parliament, but the CFEB had support from his party as well as mine. His colleagues in the then Government saw it as an important way of improving financial capability and advice, so there is shared interest in ensuring that it is successful.

I have two brief points to make about the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He should be very clear that the Independent Commission on Banking is a focused piece of work—perhaps he ought to read its terms of reference. It is about stability and competition in the banking sector, not the greater issue of banking’s social role. The ICB’s mandate is narrowly focused. The hon. Gentleman is looking perplexed.

[Chris Leslie]

With respect to the Minister, surely competition is integral to the wider social and consumer interest. If his Administration have so narrowly defined the ICB’s activities, is there not at risk that some more important questions might be neglected by Ministers in their future decisions?

[Mr Hoban]

We were keen to ensure that the ICB has a focused remit to enable it to deliver its work on time, so that we could take forward some of the lessons that should be learned from the financial crisis, when large banks posed a greater risk to the economy. UK banking was consolidated, partly as a consequence of the Lloyds and HBOS merger, and the building society sector became more concentrated. That is different from imposing additional social obligations on banks, which the hon. Gentleman seems to favour.

The hon. Gentleman also touched on independent financial advisers. He should be aware that their advice is not free; it is paid for through commission, and it is not always entirely transparent how much is being paid. A move to a fee-based system will help improve transparency. It is important that consumers receive good quality advice. We live in a complex world of financial services, and as a Minister I deal with too many cases of consumers being given bad advice and paying a high price for that. There is a strong consumer-friendly element in the reforms.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the financial services compensation scheme levy. It pays for the cost of failure among IFAs. It is an important part of the mechanism to give consumers confidence that if something goes wrong, the bill is picked up so that they are not left out of pocket. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme should be reformed, and that someone else should pick up the levy, he should be clear which sectors should do so. My experience is that people are keen to offload the responsibility to someone else, but never clear who that should be. The scheme ensures that the sector swallows its own smoke.

Turning to the main issues raised by my hon. Friend the. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I recognise his concerns about the significant impact of branch closures in his constituency, and the fact that the HSBC branch in Rhayader has only limited opening hours. I also recognise that although people in rural areas experience the same financial challenges as people in towns and cities, living in a rural area may bring additional challenges. Exclusion from financial services may be less visible in many ways in rural areas compared with urban areas.

My hon. Friend referred to micro-managing banks’ activities. I am not interested micro-managing them, and that is as true for the banks in which the state has a significant stake as for those in which we have no shareholding. However, banks and building societies should serve the economy, and we are committed to improving access to banking, and transparency of financial products for consumers. Decisions on opening and closing branches are taken by the management team of each bank and building society on a commercial basis, and the Government do not intervene in such decisions.

My hon. Friend should recognise that the role of banks is not just about branches. They play a much a wider role in helping the UK economy, and we reached agreement with them earlier this year to encourage them to work in partnership to support the recovery, to increase the amount of money they lend to small and medium-sized enterprises, and to pay out lower bonuses than last year. They are more transparent about their pay, and are making an additional contribution to support business growth and the big society bank of £1.2 billion. However, there is more work to do to improve access to financial services, certainly among the most vulnerable groups, by supporting financial mutuals, and improving competition in the banking sector.

We are committed to improving access to basic financial services, especially for those who are vulnerable to exclusion, and we are working actively to ensure that all consumers can access an appropriate mix of financial services. Bank and building society branches are not the only channels for accessing financial services, nor are they necessarily favoured by consumers on low incomes. For many people, the barriers are significantly greater than simply having no local bank or building society branch to visit.

It is important that financial services adapt so that they fit the grain of how people run their lives. For example, many consumers without bank accounts express a preference for managing their finances in cash. They want direct control over their spending, and often believe that a bank account takes that away from them. For many, the financial services with which they engage most often are not in bank branches.

That brings me to the post office network, which has more branches than all the retail banks put together. An important part of the Post Office’s future sustainability will be the continued growth of revenue from financial services. The Government have promised that there will be no programme of post office closures, and in last year’s spending review we promised to provide £1.34 billion for the Post Office to modernise the network and to safeguard its future, making it a stronger partner for the Royal Mail. We have also said that expansion of accessible and affordable personal financial services available through the Post Office should be a priority. Our ambition is that all UK current accounts should be accessible through the post office network, making post offices the convenient place for people to access their cash.

European Summit

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend and I have debated this subject before, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe opened a lengthy debate on it on 16 March. The Government are clear that the European stability mechanism is an important tool, but it is for the euro area to fund it. The ESM will lead to the extinction, as it were, of the EFSM. I do not feel it appropriate to engage in further speculation on events elsewhere.

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

Clearly, it would be troubling if the situation in Portugal reignited a round of eurozone bond market anxieties. The Opposition agree that it would be inappropriate either for us or the Government to engage in a running commentary on the likely impact of events in Portuguese politics or Portugal’s debt-financing capabilities. That is for the eurozone countries to resolve, and I would not expect the UK taxpayer to be drawn into the situation.

However, I have a number of specific questions for the Minister. For general information and the interest of the House, will he say a little more about the UK’s relationship with the Portuguese economy, including our trade relationships and UK banks’ interests in Portuguese bonds and so forth? Will the Minister update us on the Finance Ministers meeting that took place—I think—on Monday as a prelude to today’s EU summit? Originally, there were reports of an expectation that today’s summit would find its way towards resolving the permanent bail-out mechanism, yet we now hear that because of various disagreements, that will be kicked into the long grass again, until June. Does the Minister agree that it would be quite bad not to resolve that ongoing problem until the summer?

What are the Prime Minister and Chancellor doing to expedite negotiations and agreement on the permanent mechanism? Is it acceptable that the Prime Minister did not actually attend the meeting of 17 countries at the last summit at the beginning of the month, when we clearly have an interest in resolving those questions? Is it correct that the eurozone countries have invited the UK and other non-eurozone countries to have a say in debates on the new permanent mechanism? Quite honestly, we have an indirect interest in what happens, so it is surely in our interests to ensure that the eurozone countries resolve those questions quickly. It is not acceptable for the UK to absent itself at the critical moment, when it should be putting pressure on them to resolve those questions. Ultimately, we need stronger leadership from the Government to ensure that those matters are resolved in Europe and the eurozone. The longer they remain unresolved, the more likely it is that our interests will be affected.

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital that there is stability in the eurozone and that agreement is reached on the ESM. My understanding is that the issues raised by the German Government and German Chancellor are not about the fundamental design of the mechanism, but about its detailed terms. We will discuss that at this weekend’s European Council, on which the Prime Minister will report to the House on Monday, as is customary.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the UK economy’s exposure to Portugal. Our exposure is relatively small—smaller than that of a number of other European countries. Our bilateral trade in 2010 was about £4 billion, so we do not have a significant exposure, although Portugal is of course an important trading partner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I thank him on behalf of the Chancellor for his congratulations on the levy. As he recognised, the levy is a permanent feature, not a one-off tax like the previous Government’s bank payroll tax. It will raise more than the bank payroll tax did in its year in operation, on a net basis. We are committed to raising the levy from the banks over the life of this Parliament.

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

It is clear that the partial U-turn on the banking levy happened today purely by coincidence and had nothing to do with Treasury questions. Has the Minister anything else to tell the House? For example, what is he going to do about excessive bonuses? Perhaps we can coax him into another U-turn on the £1 billion corporation tax cut that he is giving the banks. If he wants to announce that at the next Treasury questions, that is fine.

[Mr Hoban]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely on top of his brief on this matter. He knows that banks will pay more tax as a consequence of the levy. The tax cuts for the financial sector are far lower than the amount we will raise from the bank levy. This is a permanent measure. The previous Government failed to take action on bank levies and ruled out introducing them on a unilateral basis. This Government have gone ahead and done the right thing for the economy and for the taxpayer.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Although most of the Opposition’s amendments relate to clause 2, these amendments deal with a number of incredibly important issues, and I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling them.

Let me take up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about amendment 6 in particular. I understand what he said about the document that was presented to us about five minutes before the start of the debate, which, I have to say, was not only unfortunate, but verging on action that I would describe as morally out of order. It has been very difficult for the Committee to assimilate rapidly what is going on in the negotiations.

However, although I understand, at first glance, my hon. Friend’s impression that amendment 6 or others might have been overtaken by events, the more I think about it, the more I feel that it would be important to have an opportunity to debate the interest rate question in particular because it has such an important bearing not only on the British taxpayer, as the organisation making the loan, but on the Irish people themselves. There are a number of circumstances that can change from time to time. What we have before us is a summary of key terms of the credit facility, which does not necessarily give us the full picture. Although we support the principle of the loan, I am slightly uncomfortable about nodding through quite technical terms without our having had even a retrospective opportunity to air the details properly. That, I think, is essentially what amendment 6 is trying to rectify. I shall say more about that shortly, but let me first deal with amendment 3, because it makes an important point.

I entirely understand the attempt by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to limit the way in which the current drafting of the Bill might affect all sorts of other unforeseen loan opportunities. He spoke of the European Union’s inveigling its way into other loan arrangements. In particular, he is worried about whether the Bill excludes what might be done under European law, because, as he sees it, this legislation leaves open opportunities for the EU to enlarge and change the mechanism, and to build on what we, at face value, know about the dimensions of the loan under discussion.

There are some interesting points about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the case of a default, and some questions probably merit further scrutiny, but I am not entirely convinced of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments or of whether his amendment to clause 1(2) would necessarily achieve much of great use. I am grateful to him, however, for at least tabling it.

We have not touched on some of the other amendments in the group. The Chancellor addressed the denomination in sterling issue in his opening comments, but the question about whether the loan should be repaid over a particular length of time is quite interesting, and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) tabled a useful amendment involving the 30-year period. The Opposition have also tabled amendments on those matters, in our case to clause 2, but our proposals are about the reports having to comment on the duration of the loan. Amendment 10, on the terms of the credit facility being open to greater debate, is quite interesting, too.

Amendment 6 looks most interesting, however. Given the drafting of this quite hurried legislation, and the unusually conspicuous absence of certain dimensions of the loan, we have a duty to pay attention to what the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) suggests. When one thinks about a loan, one should think about not just the sum of money, but the duration and the interest rate. The rate of return on the British loan is a fundamentally important fact that cannot be simply skimmed over by references in documents that are not currently official documents before the House. The Chancellor said that the Swedish and Danish bilateral loan arrangements have not yet been completed, so it is difficult for us to determine whether our prospective interest rate is more or less favourable than theirs. What would happen if there were a sudden spike in global interest rates? Where in the Bill is there any protection for the British taxpayer?

Conversely, where in the legislation is there any protection for the Irish if the current or any future Government decide to chop and change the rate from time to time, perhaps making a unilateral, Executive decision to raise the interest rate in future tranches of the loan arrangement? The Chancellor said that the interest rate will be fixed for the duration of each tranche, but there is no assurance of that in the Bill.

There is no harm in allowing the House the opportunity to debate and approve, by the affirmative procedure, a statutory instrument on the interest to be charged following the recommendation of Ministers. Our parliamentary democracy is often disregarded as some kind of rubber-stamping device, but perhaps these are good times to take back some of those safeguards, given the serious issues at hand. While Parliament votes on those moneys tonight, it must also consider taking greater ownership of the process, rather than delegating absolutely everything in absolutely every arrangement to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am certainly interested in amendment 6, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his prescience in tabling it.

[Mr Hoban]

Amendment 3, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) moved by, would ensure that the Bill did not apply to any loan made by the United Kingdom to Ireland under the European Communities Act 1972. Let me give him a second-tier assurance that the Bill applies only to the UK’s bilateral loan to Ireland. Any EU loan made to Ireland through the financial stability mechanism would not be a loan from the UK to Ireland and would not be subject to the Bill.

There is no interweaving or interlocking, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. My hon. Friend referred to paragraph 6(h) of the loan agreement. I am sure he will understand that the funding Ireland gets is dependent on it being a member of both the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. If it were no longer a member, it would no longer receive the funding and therefore there would be a problem. Amendment 4 would remove the power to increase the cap on the loan and adjust the cap for exchange rate fluctuations. I hope that the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor remove the need for anyone to push that amendment further.

Amendment 6 would require the interest rate on the loan to be approved by Parliament. That is not appropriate. The interest rate for each tranche of the lending to Ireland will be a fixed rate that is set by adding a margin of 2.29% to the sterling seven-and-a-half-year swap rate at the time that the disbursement is made. That is set out in the loan agreement and gives certainty to us and to the Irish Government, who would want to have certainty when accepting and voting on this package.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) said that the amendment would enable the loan interest rate to be reduced. It could also lead to the loan interest rate being increased to the detriment of the Irish Government and their economic recovery. It is important that there is a clear, definitive statement about what the rate is. We have published the summary of key terms of the loan agreement to help colleagues understand what the rate is and how it will be set. The rate is set with the Republic and within the range of interest rates agreed with other multilateral bodies. It would be a big mistake and irresponsible of the Labour party to vote for amendment 6, because it would create uncertainty and instability where we want certainty and stability for the Irish Government. I question whether what the amendment proposes is the right thing to do. The loan rate is agreed and clear, and it is in the summary of key credit terms. The Irish Government have signed off on those key terms. That is the rate they are expecting to get. Amendment 6 would create unnecessary uncertainty and I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises the spirit of the new politics, but I am not quite sure where he will take the debate from there. I welcome his recognition of the Government’s flexibility. I do not know what his experience is, but my experience of opposition was that it was rare for a Government to accept an Opposition amendment even in principle. So this perhaps shows that the spirit of the new politics is now coursing through the House.

I should make some holding remarks on amendment 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) tabled. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber, because he may be able to be clearer about the thinking behind his proposal than I could.

Subsections (4) and (5) are there to ensure that the duty to report does not continue indefinitely once all loans made under the Bill have been repaid and the authority to make further loans has lapsed. The way in which my hon. Friend has drafted amendment 5 would turn the requirement to report on the loan while sums are outstanding into an open-ended requirement to report every six months ad infinitum, even once all the loans had been fully repaid. I hope that the Committee will agree that this would be unnecessary and undesirable.

Amendment 2, tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition, would do something slightly different. Whereas my hon. Friend seeks to amend clause 2 to ensure that reports appear ad infinitum, the Opposition seek to bring forward the date on which the duty to report would end, by removing the requirement to report where there were no outstanding liabilities, but where there had been repayments or payments of interest in the preceding reporting period. In effect, amendment 2 says that there should not be a report where there is no balance to be repaid at the end of the period, although payments have been received in those six months. It would seem odd to remove the need for a report on the period during which the last part of the loan was paid off. Clearly the Government should be required to report that that has happened, and that is what the Bill as drafted requires.

I hope that the Committee will accept amendment (a), and that the proposers of amendments 1, 2 and 5 will not press them to a vote.

[Chris Leslie]

I do not necessarily wish to pour more congratulations on to the shoulders of the Minister—that would not be doing my job correctly—but in the spirit of Christmas I have to acknowledge, albeit begrudgingly, my appreciation of manuscript amendment (a), which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has tabled. I like to imagine him poring over the Order Paper, happening upon my amendment 1 and immediately thinking, “I must accept that amendment, but the drafting is not quite right,” and therefore rewriting it in his own fair hand. However, I suspect that several dozen parliamentary draftsmen and women were involved in the process. As the Minister said, the intention was indeed to ensure that when we report every six months on what is happening with the loans, we are talking not just about the aggregate amount of the payments made and the interest, or about the sums that are returned, but about some of the other dimensions.

As the Minister said, the reporting arrangements as set out in the Bill do not exclude the ability to make the reports more comprehensive. Indeed, we ought to state at this stage that we would appreciate as much data being contained in them as possible. One piece of information that I would have found useful is the remaining term of the loan, although that is a small point; given how small it is, I am grateful that the Government have conceded it. Perhaps I should regard this as a famous victory for the Opposition.

Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Economic Governance (EU)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[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?

Banking in Scotland

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Thursday 14th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The Bank of England engages in market activities on a day-to-day basis, but before 1997 the same institutional separation existed, with the Chancellor setting interest rates and the Bank responsible for debt management. The separation of responsibilities improves transparency and confidence in debt management and helps to keep the cost of Government debt as low as possible. My hon. Friend will appreciate how important that is, given the size of the deficit that we inherited from Labour.

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

But is it not clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) was saying, the raising of the spectre of a return to quantitative easing signalled by the Chancellor last week to the Bank of England is a clear sign that the anti-growth strategy pursued by the Government risks a major slow-down in our economy? Will the Minister take responsibility and stop playing ideological games with fiscal policy in the hope that monetary policy will miraculously pick up all the pieces?

[Mr Hoban]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He has been out of Parliament for the past five years and he should perhaps take this opportunity to reflect on the record of his predecessors and the deficit that they racked up in Government. Is he departing from the practice that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer followed when it came to quantitative easing?