Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Garnier(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. Even some within the banking industry would say that there is no economic rationale for the obscene bonuses that are given at the top of the industry, and that there is no necessity for those bonuses to make it work efficiently. On a weekly basis, businesses and individuals come to me and say that if anything is strangling growth and the potential for it, in the economy today, it is the performance of the banking industry. When I hear about of some of these bonuses, I wonder what they are being paid for. They are certainly not being paid because the banking industry is performing well in helping to grow the economy and lift us out of recession.
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. However, that is exactly why some of us have spent the past nine months on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards examining the problems he is talking about. It is why the Government introduced the Financial Services Act 2012 in order to repair the regulatory environment and to establish the Financial Policy Committee to look at the instability in the system that can come about as a result of perverse incentives from bonuses. It is why the Government are currently taking the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill through Parliament. A huge amount is being done for exactly the reasons he mentions.
Sammy Wilson
Yet the situation continues. Despite all that, we do not see any change.
Some of the arguments advanced by Government Members, mainly through interventions, as to why the proposal is a bad idea, have become increasingly desperate as the debate has progressed. I believe that this should be done, first, on the basis of fairness, and secondly, because it has some potential for changing behaviour, and that ought to be given serious consideration.
The first argument was to say, “If we do this, we will be taking money out of the economy.” What do these people who get the bonuses do with them? Are they generating additional expenditure in the economy? If someone gets a bonus of £1 million, are they likely to spend it? We all know, and it is well evidenced in economic theory, that the more money we get, the higher the proportion of that additional income we tend to save—it does not contribute to the economy. During the Budget, the Chancellor said that the poor performance in the economy was because consumer spending had been suppressed and was not what had been anticipated. When I hear the argument that discouraging these bonuses, or taking them back in the form of tax, removes spending power from the economy, I find it rather bizarre.
Sammy Wilson
Although saving is, of course, good in any economy, the important question at the moment is: how do we generate spending? The hon. Lady has reinforced the point that if money goes to unemployed people they are likely to spend 100% of that income, but someone who gets a £1 million bonus is likely to save 90% of it—perhaps more—so it will not be injected into the economy. I do not think that the argument that the amendment would remove money from the economy and, somehow or other, deflate it stands up to scrutiny.
The second argument, which was made by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)—he tried to promote it in a couple of interventions on the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)—is that all this levy would do is make finance either pricier or less available. As has been said, that implies that the only part of bank spending that is sacrosanct is the amount of money spent on bonuses. Making an activity more expensive tends to direct people away from it, and I cannot see how the banks would be any different. If we make it more expensive and more costly for them to give bonuses, they will be driven away from using those funds in that way and it would create a behavioural change. If that change did not happen, however, and bonuses continued to be paid and the tax on them recouped from customers, the alternative would be regulation. The customer should not have to pay for them—if banks do not change their behaviour, we should ensure that the taxes cannot be passed on to customers.
The third argument—I found this one bizarre, especially with regard to the bank levy—is that since we cannot be sure how much money will be raised, we should not pursue it. If that were true, we probably would not tax anything. How often do we hear the Government predict the amount that will be raised in tax revenue, only then to revise the figure within six months, either because behaviours have changed and the expected amount has not been raised, or because the economy performed in a different way than expected?
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) made that argument, but on that basis we would not have the bank levy, which was supposed to raise £2.5 billion this year, and raised only £1.1 billion. I do not know why that revenue was not raised—perhaps there was some change in the economy—but whatever the reason the bank levy did not raise the money intended. Moreover, the Government made spending plans on the assumption that that revenue would be available. I do not think that the amendment can be argued down on the basis that it may not raise the money and therefore no commitment should be made.
Mark Garnier
On that point, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have read the amendment, the whole point of which is to raise money specifically to be invested in creating new jobs and tackling unemployment. If the Opposition want to invest a specific amount, they need to know how much money they will raise.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman has missed my point; perhaps I did not make it very well. When the Chancellor declares what taxes he intends to levy in the Budget, that announcement is accompanied by what he intends to spend that tax revenue on. Sometimes that revenue materialises and sometimes it does not.
The only requirement that I would make of an amendment of this nature is that it does not throw out a reckless figure and say, “We will make £x billion from this provision and spend it.” The Minister was right to ask on what basis the amendment’s calculation was made, but it cannot be argued that, because there is a degree of uncertainty, this is not a good proposition. I would have been very unhappy had the amendment said, “Let’s raise the money and then we’ll see what we will do with it.” It is much easier to make an argument on the grounds of fairness: “Let’s raise the money and this is what we will do with it.” Knowing where the money comes from, the purposes for which it was being used and the purposes for which it will be used once collected would enable us to judge whether the proposition is fair. It is not possible to divorce how the money is raised from what will be done with it.