Tax Avoidance and Evasion
Michael Meacher Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tax avoidance and tax evasion.
I would first like to thank very sincerely the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue for debate. Tax avoidance and evasion is a cancer in Britain’s society today. The Prime Minister was right to condemn it as morally wrong and the Chancellor was right to condemn it as morally repugnant. The problem is that the Government’s actions to deal with it have been feeble and do not match those words, if indeed they are not downright evasive, as I shall show.
The extent of tax avoidance and evasion is much disputed, but even the Government admit that, along with uncollected taxes, it reached £42 billion a year in 2009, which is equal to one third of the entire UK budget deficit. Spread over the past six years, it amounted to £228 billion. The Tax Justice Network believes that the true figure might be up to three times higher. For the purposes of this debate and this argument, let us accept the Government’s figure at the moment—it is certainly big enough.
Steve Baker
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; it was an honour to join him in bidding for it.
I wanted to check where the right hon. Gentleman was getting his figures from. I am looking at the 2011 tax gap document from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It gives a figure of £35 billion for 2009-10. Where did he get the figure of £42 billion from?
Mr Meacher
I got it from the same source. I thought that the figure for 2008-09 was £42 billion. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman later. The average over the period is, I think, £38 billion and I am sure that the level reached £42 billion.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
To be helpful, I should say that I think the right hon. Gentleman is citing the 2008-09 number, while my hon. Friend is citing the 2009-10 number.
Mr Meacher
I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. Once again, I find myself at one with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker).
The haemorrhaging of tax revenues on the scale that I have described matters a great deal. First, and obviously, it is deeply unjust because tax avoidance and evasion are heavily concentrated among the big corporations and the mega-rich. If they pay hugely less than their real liabilities, that must mean that, for any given expenditure, those on average and low incomes have to pay more. That is always unjust, but it is particularly unjust at a time of prolonged austerity.
Secondly, there is the obvious point that if tax avoidance were cut sharply, many of the Government’s cuts in public spending and benefits would not be necessary and, I think, could not be justified. Thirdly, the tax avoidance industry—I do not exaggerate in saying that it is a parasite on the body politic—would be rendered largely obsolete.
The fact that City lawyers and accountants are paid vast sums to get round and neutralise what Parliament plainly intended in its Finance Bills is an open sore that would infect any democratic and fair society. The fact that they are allowed to do it makes monkeys of the Government. The fourth, and very important, point is that if most tax avoidance were stopped—I realise that it will never stop completely—companies would be forced to compete not on the basis of who was best at abusing tax law but on the quality of their goods and services. The benefit for the British economy would be substantial.
What has been the Government’s response? Tomorrow is the last day of the Government’s consultation on what they call their general anti-abuse rule, or GAAR, for tax. The background to that repays some examination. The Government commissioned the Aaronson group—Graham Aaronson is a prominent lawyer—to advise on the construction of such a rule. The group reported last November, I think. Extraordinarily, the report states right at the start that a broad anti-tax-avoidance rule is not necessary or desirable; it should apply only in the most extreme cases, so that for the overwhelming majority of cases circumventing taxes should continue as before.
I should point out that Aaronson has only ever represented companies or persons against HMRC; he has always acted pro the tax avoidance industry and never pro tax. Appointing him is rather like putting a poacher in charge of the grouse moors. Aaronson chose as his adviser Lord Hoffman, the man who killed the Ramsay principle—the general anti-tax-avoidance principle, or GANTIP—in the Westmoreland Investments case in 2001. The Government’s two key advisers on anti-tax-avoidance measures were carefully chosen in the sure knowledge that they would never recommend any such action. Thus, of course, it has proved. The Aaronson report recommended that if a general anti-abuse rule were accepted at all, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs should be obliged to consult and get the approval of a tribunal before it could be used against any particular person or company. In other words, the Government’s official tax collection agency should have to get permission from an external body before it could exercise its legal powers. That is an extraordinary proposal. However, it gets worse. The Aaronson group proposed that the tribunal should have three members—fair enough—of whom two should be from the tax avoidance industry. That makes it an open and shut case: the general anti-abuse rule will certainly gather dust on the shelf.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case to suggest that the Government are not fully enthused about this kind of idea. Will he give me a sense of where his Front Benchers stand on the matter? I absolutely support his views, but I would love to know whether they are behind him.
Mr Meacher
We have our representative on the Front Bench who will speak about that, but I will come to what I think should be done.
The Government have said that they will accept the Aaronson proposals in full—what a surprise! So the Prime Minister’s boast that he was cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance turns out to be nothing more than a paper aeroplane job devised in the certain knowledge that it will never fly.
After this tragic-comic charade, what will Government’s Bill, scheduled for next year, achieve? If it is used at all, other than as a fig leaf to cover the Chancellor’s nakedness on this issue, I think that it will be drawn extremely narrowly to include only the most egregious and extreme cases of tax abuse. It will exclude national insurance and VAT, which are a pretty large part of the tax system, and will not even regard the shifting of income, profit or gain from one tax category to another in order to gain a tax advantage as being within the definition of tax avoidance. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker! Indeed, the fact that the Government’s own economic impact assessment for the proposed general anti-abuse rule states that it will have little or no measurable impact makes it absolutely clear that the anti-abuse rule is just a massive white elephant.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is rightly making a powerful case about tax avoidance in the UK, but does he recognise that it is also a global problem? Recent OECD statistics show that the amount of tax avoidance that takes place in developing countries is three times as much as the global aid budget, and the Government’s recent legislation on controlled foreign companies makes it easier for companies to avoid paying tax in developing countries.
Mr Meacher
I agree. That is a question to which the Minister should reply. What concerns me is that this Government, out of those in all the western countries, particularly those in the EU and the OECD, have been dragging their feet the most on this issue.
Why are the Government introducing this measure? That can only be a matter of conjecture, but I suspect, as does the Association of Revenue and Customs, which represents senior officials at HMRC, that its real purpose is to stop almost nothing while allowing the vast amount of tax avoidance that it will never address to be deemed ethically and technically acceptable when of course it is nothing of the kind—in other words, to move the goalposts even further towards expanding the boundaries of so-called legitimate tax avoidance. I hope that the Minister will convince me and the House that that is not so, but that is certainly how many people read it.
Turning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), what should be done in place of this mealy-mouthed Government measure? First and foremost, we need a general anti-tax avoidance principle—GANTIP—enshrined in statute. That would allow HMRC to declare null and void any scheme whose primary purpose was an artificial contrivance to avoid tax rather than to act as a genuine economic transaction. I think that most people in this country would agree that that is an extremely fair and reasonable proposition.
That is exactly what my private Member’s Bill, the General Anti Tax-Avoidance Principle Bill, would do. It is due to receive its Second Reading tomorrow and I expect the Government Whips to give it a fair run. It was prepared and drafted by Richard Murphy, one of the founding members of the Tax Justice Network and, I can say without any exaggeration, one of the country’s leading tax accountants. It would overturn the rule in the so-called Duke of Westminster case in 1936, which has underpinned the tax avoidance activities of the accounting, legal and banking professions ever since for three quarters of a century. In effect, there is an economic test at the core of my Bill that can be applied if, having taken into account all the relevant circumstances relating to the economic substance of a transaction, it appears that tax is not being paid by the right person, in the right amount, in the right place, at the right time, or at all
GANTIP is crucial, but other measures are also needed and I will address them briefly. The Government should seek an international financial standard that requires country-by-country reporting by transnational corporations in order to block the immense loophole of transfer pricing. The European Union savings tax directive, which the UK Government have repeatedly tried to water down, should be strengthened to include offshore trusts, which are a favourite tool of the tax-cheating industry. The non-dom rule was introduced in 1799—it is somewhat anachronistic—and the UK is now the only country in the world, apart from Ireland, I think, that does not tax worldwide earnings. It should be abolished.
A much tougher line should be taken on closing down UK tax havens. The UK Crown dependencies hold some $7 trillion of US bank deposits and probably dodge some £30 billion of tax. The Cayman Islands have just 30,000 inhabitants, but they are home to 457,000 shell companies. We should adopt the rule that unless such territories provide full and automatic information on all such funds that can be taxed, any transactions with such tax havens should be declared illegal.
In conclusion, I do not often agree with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, but tax avoidance is morally wrong and morally repugnant. It is high time that we had in this country a Government whose actions show that they actually believe and support that.
Mr Gauke
I do not accept the right hon. Lady’s point about the increase in the fraud threshold. When I look at some of the work that HMRC is doing—for example, to address inheritance tax fraud—I see a substantial increase in activity. It is addressing far more cases than ever.
I know that the PAC takes a strong interest in training. It is important that staff are trained. People are being moved from other parts of HMRC—for example, from personal tax—into enforcement and compliance. It is important that they are properly trained, however, and that process is going on—progress is being made and the compliance yield is already increasing. Over the months and years ahead, we will increasingly see the benefits of a large and better-trained compliance team. It is absolutely right that the PAC scrutinises this specific point, but HMRC is making progress, and we all want to encourage it to make further and faster progress to ensure that we get the right staff in the right places.
Compliance revenue has more than doubled in six years, and HMRC is on track to bring in about £7 billion in additional tax each year by 2014-15. In addition, on avoidance, HMRC has closed down seven schemes in the past year alone and, since 2010, litigated about 30 direct avoidance cases, with a high success rate. On evasion, HMRC has secured 413 criminal convictions, resulting in more than £1 billion in additional revenue and revenue-loss prevention. Those are significant achievements,
Anyone reading the papers recently might well think that avoidance is rampant. I want to reassure right hon. and hon. Members that that is not the case, and the vast majority pay their taxes without trying to get around the system. Nevertheless, where we and HMRC see people trying to exploit the system, we will take swift action. Currently, there are a minority of cowboy tax advisers—small niche firms selling crude avoidance schemes unlikely to be successful under challenge from HMRC. Many of those who sell those schemes use tactics that border on mis-selling, and their clients can end up shocked when they are later pursued by HMRC over their involvement. The Government recognise the need to do more to target those who market such schemes to protect taxpayers and prevent them from entering into them.
Mr Meacher
Given what is widely accepted to be the unacceptable narrowness of GAAR, why are the Government not prepared to accept GANTIP? It would achieve what the Exchequer Secretary wants, which will not be achieved by GAAR.
Mr Gauke
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will turn to that point later, although I am sure the House is looking forward to debating this matter at greater length tomorrow—I know that he is.
These aggressive tax avoidance schemes are the reason we recently launched our consultation entitled, “Lifting the Lid on Tax Avoidance Schemes”, setting out ways to improve the information on avoidance available to the public and making it easier for taxpayers to see whether their adviser has promoted failed avoidance schemes in the past. I have been encouraged by the response of the professional bodies, which share the aim of addressing the small fringe of cowboy advisers who promote such schemes. Some of the criticism of the tax profession as a whole has been unfair, but there is an issue with some aspects of it, which is why we are consulting on what we can do to address the problem and also to expand the regime covered by DOTAS—the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), speaking for the Opposition, touched on. She is right that between its introduction in 2004 and the end of March 2012, it resulted in a total of 2,289 avoidance schemes being disclosed to HMRC. That, in turn, has led to more than 60 changes in tax law to stop avoidance.
Mr Meacher
With the leave of the House, I thank the Minister for his response. As he said, this has been a valuable and thoughtful debate. I also agree that there is general consensus on this matter. No one in the House takes the view that tax avoidance is other than unacceptable. The only real question, which the Minister did not fully answer, is how the measures to tackle it should be undertaken. It is possible that the general anti-avoidance rules—GAAR—are an advance on the absence of any such rules. He quoted selectively from Richard Murphy, but he did not answer my question, which was why, if he was so concerned to reduce tax avoidance as much as possible, he did not think that GANTIP would be far more effective than GAAR. I hope that we shall return to that point tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) made a thoughtful speech, as always, and I welcomed his saying that people should pay their full rate of tax. He even suggested that they should do so voluntarily and altruistically. The trouble is that they will not do so. Warren Buffett is recommending that course of action in the United States, but I have not heard of a single millionaire or billionaire in the UK who supports that position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) made an important speech, in which she said that the problem was that the rich simply did not see the payment of tax as a responsibility. I recall the words of Jon Moulton, a private equity partner, who complained that his colleagues were paying less tax than their cleaning ladies. That is the problem in this country.
Several proposals were put forward in the debate, but the Minister did not respond to them. I shall return to them tomorrow if I get a chance. One was that there should be full transparency of settlements made by HMRC. We all know the aggravation that was caused by the settlement with Vodafone. That principle should apply to all FTSE 100 companies. It was also suggested that it was counter-productive to cut the number of tax inspectors. Their numbers were cut under the previous Government—wrongly, in my view—and they continue to be cut now. The Association of Revenue and Customs estimates that the amount recovered by tax inspectors can amount to between 30 and 180 times their salaries, so there is a strong reason for markedly increasing their numbers.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) did not make a speech, but he made two targeted and relevant interventions. He said that any company that used tax havens should not be eligible to bid for a Government contract. He also suggested that everyone should pay at least a minimum rate of tax—some people have suggested 32%—in order to prevent the situation in which some people pay just 1% or 2% as a result of the diligence of their City lawyers and accountants.
This has been an extremely useful debate. I welcome it and hope the House will take these matters further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Professional Standards in the Banking Industry
Michael Meacher Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The sole argument advanced today by the Chancellor as to why there should not be a thorough, comprehensive, judge-led inquiry is that it would not report quickly enough. Despite the enormous bluster and noise of this debate—I very much agree with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) about that—that argument has been overturned by the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal for a two-tier inquiry, with the section on LIBOR to report by the end of December and the second part, which is the more important part, to report within 12 months.
We have to answer the question that has not been answered: why are the Government so coy about a genuinely independent inquiry? Is it because of their fears over what a Leveson-style inquiry into banking might expose? After all, the City, which is a pretty hard-nosed institution, does not give half the Tory party’s total income to it year after year for nothing. It expects, and undoubtedly gets, a great deal in return. Is that why the scams that repeatedly tumble out of the City under the false pretence of financial innovation, such as the mis-selling of private pensions in the 1970s, which has not yet been mentioned, and the recent mis-selling of payment protection insurance and credit default swaps, have always been treated so lightly?
Is that why the Vickers recommendations, which were already weak since the City will always get around Chinese walls by regulatory arbitrage, have been watered down further through the lobbying of the banks? The crucial rise in capital ratios was initially set at 4%, which is certainly the minimum that is necessary. That was reduced by the Chancellor to 3% and even that feeble reform has been postponed, almost unbelievably, until 2019.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s support for my efforts in January to secure a Back-Bench debate on criminal prosecutions in financial services. He asked why Government Members want a parliamentary inquiry. Does he not accept that our constituents have a visceral attitude towards the misdeeds in the financial services sector, and that one problem with a judicial inquiry is that it is the equivalent of a snooze button and the people disengage? A parliamentary inquiry would not suffer that fate.
Mr Meacher
I think the exact opposite is true. The Leveson inquiry has aroused and maintained intense public interest. Yesterday’s Treasury Committee sitting showed what happens on such occasions. Unfortunately, it became very personalised about what each Member had been saying and drew attention to the degree to which Bob Diamond was not put under serious threat. There are therefore very good reasons for a judge-led inquiry.
Is the close political-financial nexus that exists in this country the reason why the demands of Germany and France for a financial transactions tax have been swept so cavalierly under the carpet by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor? Is that why the pressure from Germany and the US to wind down the egregious tax avoidance that is largely centred on Britain’s Crown dependencies has been flatly rejected by the Government at the behest of the City?
Why are the complex derivatives that lay at the heart of the crash in 2008-09 being retained by the Government within the ring fence? Why has the incestuous relationship between the credit rating agencies and those whose creditworthiness they are supposed to be assessing been left untouched by the Government, when it allowed junk derivatives to be sold around the world with a triple A rating? What is the answer to all these questions? I think that they are very significant. Why has the colossal scandal of tax avoidance on the industrial scale of £42 billion a year, in which the City is so intimately involved, been ignored so unscrupulously?
I shall give an example. The Government set up the Aaronson group to consider the issue, led by a lawyer who has always represented the tax avoidance industry and never Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. On the first page of its report last November, that group said that a general anti-avoidance rule was not necessary. It produced the preposterous proposal that if there were such a rule, HMRC would have to seek the permission of an external body before it could be used. It gets worse, because there would have to be a majority of tax avoidance industry representatives on that body. Not surprisingly, the Government have accepted those recommendations in full. That shows the inordinate lengths to which they will go to protect the City by appearing to do something but in reality elaborately constructing a paper aeroplane in the sure knowledge that it will not fly. Those are just some of the reasons, and I believe a lot more remain hidden, why the Government do not want a judge-led inquiry at any price. They are exactly the same reasons why a systematic, wide-ranging inquiry is now so necessary.
I agree with many Members that in the last analysis, this is not about personalities or even about the corrupted culture of banking. It is much more about the deeply flawed structure and role of banking in Britain. The banks are far too big, and the big five control up to 90% of the money supply, which is far too much. We need smaller, more specialised banks that focus on key areas such as infrastructure, relational banking like that in the German mittelstand, the knowledge, science and research and development industries, the green economy, small and medium-sized enterprises and all the rest.
Above all, we need to regain public control of the money supply, which was privatised as a result of deregulation in the 1990s, so that—this is the crucial point—the nation’s financial resources are focused not on the banks’ interests of profiteering from overseas speculation, tax havens and property, in which they specialise most of all, but on the national interest of putting the nation’s resources primarily into industry, manufacturing and export. That is why the whole House should unite behind the Opposition’s motion.
LIBOR (FSA Investigation)
Michael Meacher Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I thank my hon. Friend. I say again that I came to the House just last Thursday and said that I would look to see what I could do on the fines. I have now come forward, a few days later, and said that we are going to take those fines—including the fines that Barclays will pay—and make sure that they are put to the public benefit, not to the benefit of the financial services industry. We are acting extremely swiftly on this. As I said, I would have thought that it was in everyone’s interests that we get on and deal with the matter in the coming months.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Since there is clear evidence of a conspiracy, going on for years, to defraud over LIBOR, will the Chancellor now transfer responsibility for the interest rate market away from the incestuous control of the British Bankers Association to the Financial Services Authority or the Bank of England, including the power to bring criminal charges on evidence of market abuse?
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman asks two very good questions, as did the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), about who should oversee the setting of LIBOR and what criminal sanctions should exist for the manipulation of that market. That is precisely what we are going to investigate over the next couple of months in Mr Wheatley’s inquiry. That will enable us in September and October to change the law; the Bill has been going through Parliament and can become law this autumn. I hope that I have the right hon. Gentleman’s support for getting on with this and getting the powers on the statute book.
Jobs and Growth
Michael Meacher Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The Government now appear to have two central objectives only. The first, as stated at the start of the Queen’s Speech, is to achieve economic stability, and the other, of course, is their own survival. It is all the more astonishing, therefore, that they seem fixated on pursuing a path that is wholly opposed to both those objectives. Virtually no one among UK economic commentators or in the EU, IMF or US Administration believes that the Chancellor’s oxymoronic expansionary fiscal contraction will work or that prolonged austerity will lead to growth. Exactly these policies have been tried twice in the past 100 years in this country—with the Geddes axe in the 1920s and the May committee of businessmen in the 1930s. And what happened? Exactly what is happening today: a decade of anaemic growth and a rather little cut to the overall level of national debt.
The Chancellor has only three defences of his policy. The first is that, even at this stage, he can still use fiscal manipulation. Of course, that is what he said in last year’s growth Budget, and it led straight to this double-dip recession. In this Budget, the only growth provision was his cutting of workers’ protection against unfair dismissal—as though making it easier for employers to sack their workers will somehow stimulate growth. Now we see, from the press, that he is surrounded by the Tory think-tanks, all of which are telling him to cut taxes as a way to growth. Well, the fact is, as I have said already, that the big corporations are sitting on a mountain of cash. They already have the cash; they do not need cuts in taxation to produce more funding. The problem is the lack of aggregate demand.
The Chancellor’s second defence is quantitative easing, which he seems still to think will keep the funds going to business and produce the pick-up that the country needs. It has not. We have already put £325 billion into QE, but industry is still not stimulated. Indeed, the M4 money supply to business is still obdurately negative, because the banks have overwhelmingly used it to consolidate their own balance sheets, rather than to lend and get the economy going. The primary purpose of QE is to assist Governments with low long-term interest rates—that is very sensible—and debt repayment pressures, but it has no direct stimulus on the level of demand. That is why it will not work.
The Chancellor’s third and rather plaintive defence of his policy in the House has always been that were he to borrow to invest, he would be punished in the bond markets. I think that if he came to the House with a serious, plausible growth plan, the markets would be deeply relieved and very supportive.
Even if we leave that aside, as I would, there is one other source of funding that has not been tapped and that does not involve any increase in public borrowing. That is the taxation of the seriously rich. According to the latest edition of The Sunday Times rich list, which was published three weeks ago, the gains of the wealthiest 1,000 persons—who represent 0.003% of the population; an absolutely tiny proportion—amounted to no less than £155 billion over the past three years. That is actually rather bigger than the entire UK budget deficit. If that were taxed at the capital gains tax rate of 28%—I am not suggesting that it should be done just like that—it would raise more than £40 billion. That would be enough to create 1.5 million jobs through public investment in house building and national infrastructure. So why will the Government not do that? It is because the Chancellor and his Government have a deep ideological prejudice against any role for the public sector in driving the economy. This is a Government who believe—if they believe in anything at all—in the privatisation of anything that moves. That is a deeply reactionary idea, however, because when the private sector is flat on its back, as it is at present, there is no other way to provide an effective stimulus to the economy than through public investment.
Amendment of the Law
Michael Meacher Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The central aim of this Budget should clearly have been to get growth going again in this country at all costs, and to do it in the fairest way possible. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear in its predictions that the Budget will have no material effect on the prospect of stagnant growth. The difference between here and the United States is that the Obama Administration stimulated the economy in exactly the way that Labour did in its last two stimulatory Budgets in 2009-10, and the US economy is now growing and unemployment is falling.
The fact is that there are two ways of cutting the deficit. The Chancellor’s way involves weaker growth, which means lower tax receipts and higher benefit spending. Dragging down aggregate demand—a crucial factor—pulls down growth another notch, and the whole downward spiral starts again. There is a real risk of that happening, because only 6% of the benefit cuts have taken effect; 94% are still to come. Indeed, that is exactly what happened when the ridiculous experiment with expansionary fiscal contraction was tried, twice, during the past 100 years of this country’s history. The Geddes Axe in 1923 and the May Committee in 1931 stifled growth, made unemployment rocket and stalled recovery all the way to the second world war.
The alternative is a jobs and growth strategy, which many Labour Members are continually emphasising. Such a strategy would put the unemployed directly back to work, reduce benefit spending and have a direct impact on growth in a way that quantitative easing and credit easing will never do. The only argument that the Chancellor has used against that proposal is that the bond markets would never stand for a rise in expenditure that increased the deficit.
In this Budget, however, it is simply not fiscally neutral to give away £3 billion to the super-rich, when there is not a shred of evidence to support the Treasury myth that tax avoiders will meekly come flooding back home from Bermuda and Monaco to pay their taxes because of a 5p cut. The Chancellor has chosen to give away another £1.5 billion to big business through the 2% cut in corporation tax, although the businesses are already sitting on an unprecedented stash of £700 billion. That equates to half of Britain’s GDP, which they are not spending. Why? Because there is no growth, and no demand in the economy. That £4.5 billion that the Chancellor has wasted on his super-rich friends and businesses could have been used instead, without any disturbance to the bond markets, to generate 250,000 jobs. That could have begun to mark the beginning of the turnaround of the British economy, which everyone, including the City, is now desperate to achieve.
I want to say one last thing about fairness. Before the election the current Chancellor said that he would not dream of cutting the 50p rate of tax if he expected people to accept a pay freeze in order to protect their jobs, but after the election the façade was dropped. It is not just the common or garden rich earning merely £3,000 a week who will be getting it; it goes right the way up to Bob Diamond on £300,000 a week.
Banking (Responsibility and Reform)
Michael Meacher Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
No one can seriously doubt that Britain urgently needs fundamental banking reform, but what has been done so far, since the crash of 2008-09, is timid beyond belief. Hardly any of the factors behind the crash have been effectively dealt with. Extreme light-touch regulation left too much to the markets; a vast global market was created in credit derivatives, which were not well understood but were recklessly securitised throughout the world because of their huge profitability; the selling frenzy was stoked even further by enormous bonuses, which drove the recklessness; the banking structure was so over-concentrated in the lead banks that, when disaster struck, they were judged too big to fail, with catastrophic and desperate consequences for the national budget and debt; and the business model linked speculative investment with retail deposit-taking, with the former as well as the latter protected by an implicit taxpayer guarantee.
All those problems, which were familiar to all of us, need to be dealt with, but none has been, partly because of the intransigence of the banking lobby in resisting reform, and partly because of the weakness of political supervision. That makes another crash quite likely, but if there is one we might find it much more difficult to get public support for a bail-out.
First, no significant action has been taken to curb complex financial derivatives, which were, perhaps more than any other factor, central to the collapse. Derivatives are the obvious candidate to trigger the next crisis, because they add opacity and leverage to the financial system. The obvious requirement is transparency, and in the United States that was provided by the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires that all derivatives be traded across public exchanges. We all know that in this country some highly dubious securities gained a spurious status due to the scandal of the credit-rating agencies, which were paid by the very institutions whose creditworthiness they were supposed to assess. That ought to be made illegal; better still, the function should be transferred to the public sector to ensure integrity and transparency.
Secondly, there is public outrage—even now at this late stage the Government find it difficult to accept it—at a banking system which owes its continued existence to massive Government intervention, paying itself mega-salaries and bonuses, and at the fact that 90% of investment bank profits are, in an age of austerity, directed not at strengthening balance sheets, not at shareholder dividend, not at lower fees for customers, but at gigantic personal pay-offs.
Ministers say that to do what some countries such as France are doing, with a mandatory cap and the removal of the bonus guarantee, is impractical, but there can be no doubt that, if the G20 Governments insisted on limits and made continued liquidity provisions dependent on compliance, no bank could refuse.
Thirdly, to avert financial crises, the Government have placed far too much emphasis on enhancing capital controls, and they have done so in a manner that is unlikely to be effective. At the outset of the 2008-09 financial crisis, almost all financial institutions across the globe had capital adequacy at least equal to, and in some cases even twice as much as, the minimum Basel regulatory requirements. But, despite the near-global collapse of the system under those provisions, Basel III proposed in 2010 that the core top-tier capital requirement be only 4.5% and the contingency capital requirement be only 2.5%. Of the EU's top 50 banks, 45 had already met those requirements, and Basel III does not even require them to come into force until 2019. For the Government to accept that is incredibly feeble. It is far too little, far too late and it reflects the Government’s connivance with the banks in minimising reform.
Fourthly, the Vickers commission proposals that the Government, unsurprisingly, have accepted are weak and deeply flawed. Trying to separate retail banking from investment banking with some kind of internal Chinese walls is doomed to failure because of regulatory arbitrage. Financial institutions always invent ever more sophisticated products simply to get around regulatory controls. That is the argument for a clean break between retail high-street banking and investment casino banking. That would have the key advantage of removing the implicit taxpayer guarantee, which allows financial conglomerates safely to use retail deposits for proprietary trading.
Britain arguably retains the most profoundly dysfunctional banking system of any G7 country. It came closer to collapse than any other in autumn 2008. The banking sector in this country is twice as large, relative to the rest of the economy, as in any other major EU country. It is stuffed with mega-banks that are addicted to property, mortgage lending, offshore speculation and tax evasion. Barclays Capital is only the most obvious example of that. Britain needs a much more diversified banking structure with smaller banks, in particular specialist business banks such as infrastructure banks, housing banks, green banks, creative industry banks and knowledge economy banks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern and that of many people inside and outside this House over bank charges for the ordinary account holder? The ordinary account holder seems to pay a higher price every time, whereas those at the top of the banks get the dividends.
Mr Meacher
I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The mega-bonuses go along with small businesses having to pay exorbitant interest charges, if they can get a loan at all. The Financial Secretary says that the Government are doing their best with RBS, but why do the Government not tell RBS what level of business lending there should be and what the conditions on it should be?
Margot James
In fact, RBS has a reasonably good record of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. It just missed its Merlin targets. It launched a new product at the end of last year for businesses with low fixed interest rates, no early repayment charges and no fees for the first three months. It is above the market average for small business loans. Some 40% of all SME loans are from RBS, which is—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to the hon. Lady that interventions must be brief. There is substantial pressure on time and I would like to accommodate Members.
Mr Meacher
The hon. Lady has obviously received a detailed RBS briefing. However, what she describes is very different from the experience of our constituents, who complain about how difficult it is to get loans and about the prohibitive conditions that are attached to them.
I want to make one more point. It is little recognised that 85% of the British public’s money is held by just five banks, which are able to use that money with little or no accountability to the public. Investment in the UK economy therefore reflects the interests not of the public or of society, but of the senior decision makers at the five largest banks. Given that the total gross spending of the banking sector in the run-up to the crash exceeded by far total Government spending, the decision makers in those banks potentially have more spending power to shape the UK economy than the whole machinery of Government. That is a significant fact. In effect, control over the money supply and the allocation of credit has been largely privatised. That is central to Britain’s problems.
Britain needs above all to escape the dangerously mounting deficit in our traded goods account, which in the last two years has been up to £100 billion a year or 7% of GDP. The allocation of credit cannot be left in the hands of private commercial banks, which currently channel only 8% of the money supply into productive investment. Instead, they generate colossal asset bubbles through mortgages and household borrowing.
What is needed is the re-adoption of the rationing of bank credit through official guidance, enforced where necessary through quantitative ceilings. That prevailed successfully in this country until the 1971 competition and credit control measures, which inaugurated the era that said that the market always knows best and in which the deregulation of finance depended almost exclusively on the price mechanism and variable interest rates.
Bonus figures released last week show that the top 1,250 executives in the eight leading London banks received an average of £1.8 million in 2010. That is £34,000 a week. What is really needed in banks, as elsewhere, is whole company pay bargaining, whereby the pay at each level, including at the top, has to pass the examination and approval not just of shareholders, but of the employed staff who are the bedrock of the organisation.
Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses
Michael Meacher Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
If I said that the Chief Secretary’s defence of the Government’s position was unconvincing, that would be generous.
I want to focus on bank bonuses and the impact that they have on the economy, particularly on youth unemployment. It is striking that this year the pig-fattening season in the City—otherwise known as bonus time—happens to coincide not only with unemployment among young people exceeding 1 million but with the rest of the population being informed, through research undertaken by Resolution Foundation, that the pay freeze is now expected to last until 2020. Last year the squeezed middle, which represents about a third of the population, suffered a big 4.2% real-terms fall in their incomes; now they are being told that by 2020 they will have £1,700 a year, or about £33 a week, less than they had in 2007—an 8% drop even before inflation kicks in. On the other hand, the City’s 1,200 code staff—the people who take and manage risk—will this year take home, on average, about £1.8 million. That is £34,500 a week or, to put it another way, 78 times the average wage.
Of course, those people are the elite—the risk takers. It is not a bad reward for those who took and managed risk so skilfully until 2008 that as a result, a gargantuan bail-out was required that has cost this country and the Government £70 billion, and torn a hole in the Government budget amounting to 8.5% of GDP, £120 billion. That is the difference between the deficit before the crash and 11.6%, which was the figure afterwards, and it is still projected to lead in 2013-14 to a national debt of about £1.4 trillion—slightly more than the nation’s entire income. That is not a bad achievement for just over 1,000 people. It is a pretty good thing that there were not a million of them, as that would have bankrupted the economy totally.
What makes this greed—and that it is what it is—so unconscionable is that it is so unrepentant. There has not been a shred of remorse or apology for what has been done to the country; indeed, it has been quite the opposite, with an arrogant decision that we should return to business as usual as though nothing has happened. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) rightly said, the banks have not even fulfilled the very modest requirements of them under Merlin to increase lending to businesses and home owners and contribute to the creation of jobs, especially for young people. Indeed, the opposite has happened. Lending to business has actually declined because of the degree of deleveraging, and the number of jobs going to young people has also declined, leading, of course, to a disastrous increase in unemployment.
The truth is that the bankers do not seem to get it. There is public outrage that a banking system that owes its continued existence to massive Government intervention can still pay itself mega increases in salary and bonuses, and that in an age of austerity 90% of investment bank profits are directed not at strengthening balance sheets, at shareholders’ dividends, at lowering costs to customers or at creating jobs for young people, but at a gigantic personal pay-off.
I simply ask this: what is the justification for bankers’ bonuses? Bonuses were what caused the reckless stampede into derivatives, securitisation and other new-fangled financial instruments that it turned out all those clever chaps in the City did not even understand. Even now, they still do not want to put their money into what the nation really needs, which is jobs for young people—that is what the debate is all about—and a massive revival of manufacturing industry. In 2010 the UK deficit on traded goods was a staggering £100 billion, which is the worst by far that this country has ever suffered, and 2011 is likely to be much the same, or possibly worse. That is unsustainable, and dealing with it should be our No. 1 priority.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that the other problem is that bankers are still obsessed with the short term? That is why they are not investing in such things as manufacturing. They are still obsessed with the short-term measures that deliver them large-scale bonuses.
Mr Meacher
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I am sure everyone in the House realises, there is far too much short-term instinct, particularly in the City. What we need, and have not had, is the relational banking that exists in the mittelstand in Germany. Banks there spend a lot of time, effort and money producing a long-term relationship with manufacturing units that they can support. That is the type of model that we need in this country, but it is not what we have got.
The banks continue to put their money overwhelmingly into property, mortgages, offshore speculation and tax havens, all for their own enrichment, and stuff the rest of the economy and jobs for young people. I am putting it strongly, but there is huge bitterness outside, as one can see from the August riots, from the Occupy movement and from many other instances of anger beginning to bubble up.
Mr Meacher
No, I will not give way now.
Bankers’ bonuses have already nearly proved the ruination of this country. What we need is a smaller banking sector that serves the real needs of this country, and particularly of its young people, if we are to avoid a lost generation. Saying no to bonuses, or at least taxing them, is certainly the right way to start.
The Economy
Michael Meacher Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
There is a paradox at the centre of the autumn statement that makes it self-defeating. The statement was widely touted as a growth Budget, but it is the opposite. The infrastructure plans relate to the medium-term future, on a three to 10-year time scale, but even if they materialise they are not the stimulus that is urgently needed now. Pension funds will certainly not invest in infrastructure unless the Government fully underwrite the risk, in which case it will be registered in the national accounts as a potential increase in expenditure and thus a rise in indebtedness. The paradox is that even to achieve that “smoke and mirrors” impression of growth the Chancellor is such a deficit fetishist that he has been obliged to tell the markets that there is no increase in spending at all, and everything has been funded by cutting spending elsewhere.
Significantly, the Chancellor has chosen to make those cuts by hitting the poorest hardest. Of the £1.2 billion child tax credit and working tax credit savings over the next year, 32%—nearly a third—will come from the poorest fifth but only 6% from the richest fifth, yet the poorest are precisely the segment of our population that is by far the most likely to spend and thus to stimulate growth. Reducing that source of growth in favour of will-o’-the-wisp infrastructure plans in the medium-term future is a pretty silly policy. It is certainly perverse and anti-growth.
The biggest problem facing Britain is not indebtedness, but the lack of aggregate demand. Everyone recognises that except our myopic Chancellor. In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes said that if we look after unemployment, the budget will look after itself. Exactly the same thing applies today. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, warns that if all countries deleverage at the same time, it will be economic suicide. It is absurd to imagine that the markets would not accept some modest loosening of the monetary targets if it was likely to produce a serious prospect of growth; indeed, they would welcome that.
Of course we have constantly heard the Chancellor’s refrain against this argument, his canard that any increase in public expenditure will push up interest rates, threaten the precious triple A rating and cost Britain more, but he does not have to increase public borrowing to kick-start growth. There are two sources of funding that he could draw on at no risk from the markets whatsoever. One is to require the super-rich to make a fair contribution to the Exchequer at a time of crisis for the country. At present they are contributing next to nothing.
In the past year, according to the IFS, the income of the bottom 10th of the population rose by 0.1%. The income of the directors of the top FTSE 100 companies rose by 49%. That is just about 500 times as much. It is time those latter people and the financial and corporate elite of which they are such a part made a fair contribution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman has clearly identified those at the top of the earnings scale, but at the bottom of the earnings scale are the long-term unemployed. Does he accept the concern of many in the House that the long-term unemployed are not looked after, and that there seems to be little regard for them?
Mr Meacher
Indeed. I very much support that point, and I shall come on to it later, if the hon. Gentleman allows me to make my argument.
I draw the attention of the House to the point that I was making. The latest version of The Sunday Times rich list, published in May, shows that in the 1990s the 1,000 richest people in this country—0.003% of the population, a tiny number of people—had assets of £99 billion, which by 2010 had more than tripled to £335 billion. That is truly staggering. It means that those 1,000 persons alone could pay off the entire budget deficit with just half of the gains that they have made over that period. So not to make the ultra-rich pay down a significant part of the deficit, which they themselves have largely created, is perverse, unjust and wilfully prejudiced.
There is a second source of funding that the Chancellor could and should, with no net increase in expenditure, use in order to resuscitate growth. Here I come to the point to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) drew attention. It costs £8 billion to £10 billion every year to keep a million people on the dole. Instead of letting them rot on the dole, the Chancellor could create, with the same amount of money and no net increase in borrowing at all, up to 500,000 jobs to begin the house building, the energy and transport infrastructure improvement, and the development of the new green digital economy—all the things that the country so desperately needs.
The Chancellor would then have a triple whammy. He would reduce joblessness by a fifth, he would get income tax and national insurance contributions and he would get VAT, all by having people working rather than drawing benefits. He could well get Britain moving again. That is what the Labour party stands for, and it is about time the Chancellor, who has wreaked such devastation, caught on to a plan that will reduce the deficit fairly and sustainably and finally produce some growth in this country.
Autumn Statement
Michael Meacher Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right. We are uprating out-of-work benefits and the basic state pension. The coalition Government are committed to the triple lock. People can see the benefit of that today. He is also right that we are committed to real increases in the personal income tax allowance. We have already had two of those. The coalition agreement is absolutely clear on that. I also support it as a tool of economic policy. We want to lift more people out of tax altogether.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
What is the right hon. Gentleman’s precise estimate of the overall growth, if any, that will arise from today’s package, given that there is no net increase in demand? Is not his core £5 billion infrastructure package—just 0.7% of current expenditure—merely tinkering at the edges and completely incapable of pulling Britain out of its deepening slump?
Northern Rock
Michael Meacher Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend has championed particular ideas about the distribution of shares in RBS, and we listen to those views carefully. It is absolutely right to see this as a milestone towards the normalisation of the banking system. It requires a significant reform to regulation and to the structure of banking, which is a course that we are embarked upon.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
But is it not a scandal to sell off Northern Rock unnecessarily at this time at a cost to the taxpayer of up to a £500 million loss, especially when, in addition, the bad debts of Northern Rock Asset Management, which, significantly, the Minister did not mention, will be dumped on the taxpayer when the £50 billion of mortgages it still holds begin to default as interest rates rise?
Mr Hoban
Clearly, there are two parts to the Northern Rock business that the previous Government nationalised: the business that we are selling—Northern Rock plc—and Northern Rock Asset Management, which holds a lot of the old mortgage book. The previous Prime Minister assured the House that both would make a profit for the taxpayer.