Child Benefit

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

I will not give way. I want to put my points on record, and it is a very short debate. If I have time later on, I will take some interventions.

The Prime Minister and his predecessors have so frequently professed their support for “hard-working families” that the expression has become a political cliché. How extraordinary, therefore, that the Government are still persisting with a policy that will undermine those hard-working families, especially those families in the squeezed middle. What families could be more hard working than those 55,000 or 60,000 single parent families where the lone parent works long hours in a demanding job to earn more than £43,000 a year, thereby qualifying as a higher rate taxpayer and a victim of this policy? Such families also often have very high child care costs. In the league table of hard-working families, they are closely followed by two-parent families where the breadwinner supports a spouse who cannot work, whether because of disability, long-term sickness or the need to support a child who is disabled or sick.

A family in the last category came to my constituency surgery in autumn 2010 and impressed on me the utter folly of the Government’s proposals. I then engaged in correspondence with the Treasury. On 18 January 2011, the Exchequer Secretary responded to my letter of 16 October—the fact that it took three months to get a response indicates something—in which I had specifically asked the Chancellor about the impact of his policy on those in receipt of carer’s allowance. My constituent’s wife earns slightly above the higher rate threshold, while he stays at home to look after his two children, one of whom has Down’s syndrome. The point that I wished the Chancellor to address was my constituents’ concern that in households where, through circumstance rather than choice, only one parent is able to work, the higher rate tax payer is normally compensating for the lack of earning capacity of the other. As my constituents said:

“This penalises families of those who live the true spirit of social responsibility each and every day.”

After a three-month delay, I received my reply; I had hoped for a better response. It merely asserted that the policy is tough but fair and that affected families are within the top 20% of the income distribution of all families. I immediately wrote back asking my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to address specifically how the impact of the proposals on families such as that of my constituent could be regarded as fair. I am sorry to say that it was another three months—on 12 April—before my hon. Friend replied. He said:

“Inevitably, introducing a simple change to a universal system can create some difficult cases and it would unfortunately be difficult to create an exception for families where one partner is a carer.”

He repeated the assertion that the Government believed the policy to be fair, but how can it be fair to target such families, by asking them to make a greater contribution to reducing the deficit, while exempting families with earnings of up to £84,000 a year that are spread equally between both parents?

Fewer than one in 10 of the families from whom child benefit is to be taken away contain two higher rate taxpayers; I think that the number is 130,000 families. Almost all the remainder, therefore, will or may be in a weaker position to bear such a loss of benefit than those households with two persons earning up to £84,000 a year between them.

When I corresponded with the Treasury, the threshold for higher rate tax was £43,876. Since then, despite rising inflation—there has been a 3.1% increase in the retail prices index in the last year—the starting rate for higher rate tax has been reduced by £1,400, while the threshold for 2013-14 is still unspecified. Therefore, even more families will be affected by this change than was originally envisaged.

The policy that we are discussing today has never been properly thought through. By all accounts, it was included in the Chancellor’s speech at the 2010 party conference at the last minute, after an earlier plan to announce the withdrawal of child benefit from all children over the age of 16 was scrapped. That is why the early estimate of the contribution that this policy will make towards reducing the deficit was £1 billion. That early estimate was wrong, but in typical Treasury fashion the Government now say that anyone who opposes the withdrawal of child benefit must come up with an alternative means of producing £2.4 billion a year to go towards deficit reduction.

It is worth reminding ourselves that families are already contributing to the reduction of the deficit through the freezing of child benefit. That policy alone will save about £1 billion in 2013-14 and the total contribution that it will make during the three-year freeze is about £3 billion. In addition, many of the families who are affected by withdrawal of child benefit will lose £550 a year in basic child tax credit from this April onwards.

In responding to this debate, I expect the Minister to argue that he is in pre-Budget purdah and that he will treat what I have said as a representation, but I want him to say specifically why the Government’s proposal to increase the tax burden on hard-working families is not being defined as a tax increase but as an expenditure reduction. We know that the Chancellor has always been keen to present his deficit reduction plan in terms of achieving a fair balance between Government expenditure reductions and tax increases. Without getting into an argument about the extent to which the original target of expenditure reductions has been missed, I must ask: is it not disingenuous to regard the withdrawal of child benefit in terms other than a tax increase? After all, the antecedents of child benefit lie in the concept that there should be a higher tax allowance for those with dependent children than for those without dependent children. In essence, the Government’s policy is to remove that tax allowance and thereby increase the tax burden.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he share my inclination to believe that the Government might be able to extricate themselves from the set of powerful problems that he describes through some combination of a transferrable child tax allowance and the universal credit system?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Many of us thought, because we went into a general election committed to having transferrable tax allowances and to promoting family values, that those allowances would be implemented. Although there was provision in the coalition agreement for the Liberal Democrats to abstain or vote against those allowances, it was expected that the Conservatives would introduce them and that the House would have an opportunity to judge them.

A lot of the difficulties that have been brought about as a result of the analysis of the proposal to remove child benefit come from the fact that we have abandoned the idea of using the tax system to say, “Well, if you’ve got two equivalent families, one with three or four children and the other without any children then the costs of the family with children must be greater than those of the family without children, and therefore there should be a greater tax allowance for the family with children than for the family without children.” That is the basic principle. We could have restored it or indeed enhanced it by having transferrable tax allowances, which was a commitment in our manifesto.

What depresses me, however, is that in the 16 months since October 2010, when the original proposal was made by the Chancellor, nothing seems to have been done to take forward those issues and to try to find a fair solution. Obviously, implementing something like transferrable tax allowances would take some time; we would need to have draft legislation and any such allowances probably could not be implemented by January 2013, when the Government have committed themselves to impose this burden on higher rate taxpaying families.

The Government have missed a big opportunity on transferrable tax allowances, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have time to explain why that happened—because, as I have said, introducing those allowances was a Government policy that had been announced—and also why the Government recently reconfirmed that they have no intention whatsoever of proceeding with transferrable tax allowances.

I will give my hon. Friend the Minister some time to respond to this debate, but I should like to make some other points. I think that the Liberal Democrats are rather in favour of the policy of withdrawing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers, because they want to remove as many tax benefits from higher rate taxpayers as possible. But of course the Liberal Democrats would also like that policy to be dressed up as an expenditure reduction, because that expenditure reduction would be balanced with a tax increase and therefore there could be an additional tax increase on top of removing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers. That would also take the pressure off finding genuine reductions in expenditure, which would be achieved by reducing the size of the state.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can address that issue in his response to the debate, because there is a real definitional problem here. The way that the Government are proposing to introduce this tax penalty on higher rate taxpayers with children is effectively to require the family to declare whether or not the taxpayer or their partner are in receipt of child benefit, and then the taxpayer would be taxed 100% on that child benefit. Surely, that is a tax increase rather than an expenditure reduction.

As a contribution to this debate, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a devastating but none the less very useful report, and I hope that some of the issues identified in that report, which my hon. Friend the Minister will probably have been studying closely since it was published about a fortnight ago, will be addressed in his response to this debate.

Why do the Government want higher rate taxpayers with children to make a greater contribution towards deficit reduction than higher rate taxpayers without children? Surely, it would be fairer if all higher rate taxpayers contributed equally towards deficit reduction. Any changes in the higher rate tax band needed to achieve that aim would be simple, fair, easy to collect and difficult to avoid. In other words, they would meet all the original objectives of a good tax, unlike the Government’s current proposals, which, as I have said, have been the subject of withering criticism from the IFS. In its report, the IFS estimates that £90 million of the supposed yield from this new policy would be uncollectable, that £60 million would be lost through non-compliance, that £280 million would leak through what is described as tax planning and that, in addition, there would be administrative costs and a need for extra Inland Revenue staff. There has not been a defined estimate of those additional administrative and staff costs, but a rough estimate of at least £130 million has been proposed.

Could anyone think of a more absurd and ludicrous policy to introduce than this one? It increases the complexity of the tax system; it adds to the demand for more civil servants in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to examine the changes that will be made; it encourages people to fiddle their arrangements; and it exacerbates the problem of what happens when people live together during a year without declaring it. The Government were committed to reducing the couple penalty, but this proposal will actually exacerbate it. I do not think that there is anything commendable or sensible about this policy, and there are alternatives to it.

I asked the Library if it would be possible to come up with an alternative. I do not take this view myself, but if one thought that the way to deal with this issue was to say, “If there are two higher rate taxpayers in a family, they should forfeit their child benefit”, that change would affect only 130,000 families. It would not generate much income, but it would apply to those 130,000 families who definitely have a joint income that is greater than the £84,000 to which I referred earlier.

I asked the expert in the Library whether it would be possible to have a system whereby people could claim relief against loss of child benefit by certifying that the total gross income of their household did not exceed £85,000. The answer was that, in principle, that would be possible, but that it would require joint filing for households with at least one higher rate taxpayer. One presumes that having made a return at the end of the year showing total joint income was no more than £85,000, child benefit would not be withdrawn from that household.

There are ways of generating some income in the context of this policy, but I do not think it is worth the candle, because it cuts across the dearly and long-held principle that we should have a universal benefit for families with children.

Financial Services Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mudie]

That is an important point. I think that it was Charles Goodhart who raised the question of indicators. They are certainly interesting, but on a wider scale, I think it more important to establish that, given that the Monetary Policy Committee is linked to a target of 2% inflation, the Financial Policy Committee should be linked to growth employment measures that ensure that there is no “safety low level” of stability, and be forced to have a look at the problems of the real world out there.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s speech seems to allude to a search for an equilibrium that never exists in the real world. Does he think that that disconnection between the reality of life as a dynamic process and the search for stability is at the heart of the inability to define financial sustainability?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

That is absolutely right, and I should also pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend’s profession outside this House, because, as in the common law, every successful system of oversight that has stood the test of time allows room for both rules and judgment. The common law is an example of a system that has built up over time and that understands the complexities of human behaviour. It has strict rules in some regards, but it also allows the exercise of judgment in order to be able to adapt to modernity and circumstances. If we move entirely towards rules and away from the exercise of any judgment, we take away that ability to adapt.

[Steve Baker]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point in comparing the approach under discussion to the common law. Does he agree that a key difference is that whereas in the common law anybody can look at previous judgments and know how the law will respond to their behaviour today, under this proposal to have flexible forward-looking, judgment-based regulation we cannot necessarily be sure today how the state will treat our current actions at some point in the future?

[Matthew Hancock]

It would be better if we had an embedded and long-standing system in which there were those precedents, but as we do not have about 800 years to put it in place it is better to have a forward-looking system. If my hon. Friend has a suggestion as to how we can use precedent built up over time, given that we are starting from a system that catastrophically failed, I would be very interested to hear it.

[Steve Baker]

I hope that my hon. Friend will stay for my speech.

[Matthew Hancock]

As I said, this pendulum swung too far, but why do we need to allow the authorities to exercise discretion? It is because the world we face is as we find it, not as it is written in the rulebook. Indeed, the very complexity of the system calls for simple rules, because the more complex the rules applied to a complex system, the more likely somebody is to try to game it and, therefore, the more complex the set of rules that will need to be imposed again on the system to try to account for that behaviour. We see the same thing in respect of other areas of Government policy, not least the tax system, where complexity has led to avoidance activity, which has led in turn to complexity, and so we now have the longest tax code in the world. This attitude towards regulation and oversight makes no sense in the modern world of complexity. Complex systems need simple rules.

Complexity also adds cost to businesses not targeted initially. Worse still, the complexity leads to a moral abdication, because the rules become a substitute for personal responsibility. Just as we need to allow for the exercise of discretion by regulators, we also need, within a system that promotes responsibility, to allow for the discretion of management. That is why I have concluded that we need to ensure, especially in such a high-paying business, that the sanctions for failure and for irresponsibility are strong. It is not a good enough sanction for someone simply to lose their job in an industry where it is easy to move into another one.

In the first instance, we need to move to a system where the debarring of directors is made easier, not least because when a bank is rescued it technically does not go through the current debarring rules. The FSA is right to regulate pay and introduce claw-back, but we also need, in extremis, to introduce a measure to ensure that for recklessness at the helm of a systemically important bank there is a stronger and, if necessary, criminal sanction. I hope that such a measure would never be used but, as with other areas of life where these measures are hardly ever used, it greatly concentrates the mind to know that a deep sanction exists for reckless and deeply irresponsible negligence. I hope that such a measure would be a check on hubris and would last the test of time so that it would be in existence next time there is a boom and the associated hubris.

I hope that that change, the changes in this Bill and other changes will allow those of us who support the free market, enterprise and innovation to support, unabashedly and with enthusiasm, the wealth creators, who make our prosperity possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer the House to my interest in Cobden Partners, which has been established to help nations solve their banking crises.

I very much welcome the Bill, which I hope and believe will prove to be the zenith of contemporary thought on bank reform. With due deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I wish to talk about three potential elephants in the room. First, I wish to make some remarks about accounting, then I wish to discuss the conduct of individuals and liability, and finally I wish to talk about financial stability.

I know that the Minister has heard my views on the international financial reporting standard, but I draw his attention to a letter in yesterday’s Financial Times by Lord Lawson, under the headline “Forget Fred and focus on the real banking scandal”. He stated:

“The auditing of banks’ accounts, however, is fundamentally flawed in itself. The IFRS accounting system itself has proved to be damagingly pro-cyclical, and the ability to pay genuine (and genuinely large) bonuses out of purely paper profits, which are never subsequently realised, is at the heart of both the bonuses that cause such public and political outrage, and the reason why bank management consistently does so well when bank shareholders do so badly.”

Andy Haldane, the executive director for financial stability at the Bank of England, gave a speech in December. I shall not read out all the remarks that I meant to cover, but he concluded by saying that

“if we are to restore investor faith in banking sector balance sheets, nothing less than a radical rethink may be required.”

He was referring, entirely, to accounting standards. I therefore refer the Government to my private Member’s Bill introduced on 13 May 2011, which seeks to introduce parallel prudent accounting for banks. It is a couple of pages long and I hope that it can be added to this Bill.

I also refer the Government to “The Law of Opposites”, a paper produced by the Adam Smith Institute and written by my colleague Gordon Kerr, who has spent 25 years “gaming accounting rules”, as he would perhaps say, in order to make a profit. The banking system is in a far worse state than is generally believed. I do not see how either the Financial Policy Committee or the Prudential Regulation Authority can operate without a true and fair view of the state of financial institutions, and I do not believe for a moment that the international financial reporting standards give that to us.

On the conduct of individuals, we fail too often to think about the pattern of regulation in which we have engaged. It seems that the first thing that legislation does is damage the incentives and disciplines of the market. Having thereby created moral hazard, regulators come along to try to mitigate the consequences of that moral hazard. A banking licence today is a licence to lend money into existence, at interest, with the risk socialised. When we look at central banking, deposit insurance and limited liability, we find that moral hazard is absolutely rife in the banking industry, even before we consider investment banking. I suggest to the Government that it is time to increase the liability of banks’ directors. There should be strict liability for them, and bonuses should be held in a pool and treated as capital for at least five years. I will introduce a private Member’s Bill to that effect on 29 February.

We have talked about financial stability and the difficulty of defining it. There has been a sense that there is some kind of equilibrium economy—an evenly rotating one—in which there could be a sustainable and stable quantity of credit. Indeed, on pages 14 to 16 of the Joint Committee’s report there is an interesting discussion about the need to regulate credit.

To leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I will just say that if we were talking about any other commodity and were discussing adding to a failed regime of price control a regime of quantity control, we would certainly reject the idea out of hand. In Lord George’s testimony to the Treasury Committee before the crisis, he made it absolutely clear that the Bank of England had created a credit bubble to avoid falling into recession, yet we are going to give the Bank even more powers, more tools, more risk of ruin and more big-player effects and distortions of economic expectations.

I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, and I sincerely hope that it represents the absolute zenith of contemporary thinking on interventionist bank reform.

Banking Commission Report

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The 2019 timetable was recommended by John Vickers in the report. People should be clear that that is the backstop. That is the final day when everything has to be implemented. In particular, if the additional capital requirements were implemented today, it might have an impact on the economy that we would not want to see. The ring-fencing legislation will be in place by the end of the Parliament and banks will be expected to comply with it as soon as is practically possible. The competition requirements will be in place by 2013. When it comes to jibes about who is working in the financial services, I seem to remember that a number of former Labour Prime Ministers are now quite lucratively paid in the financial services.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Chapter 3 of the Government’s report, on loss absorbency, seems, perhaps reasonably, to take for granted the adequacy of accounting standards. I press the Chancellor in his forthcoming White Paper to consider seriously the pernicious effects of the international financial reporting standards, which were applied to banks by the previous Government.

[Mr Osborne]

There is a debate to be had about international accounting rules and their impact on the financial crisis, which I am happy to have with my hon. Friend in person. There are moves afoot to make the international bodies that set the standards more accountable by using the Financial Stability Board. He raises a good issue.

The Economy

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

As I rise to speak I am reminded of a quotation from an economist who was a fierce critic of Keynes, a chap called Henry Hazlitt, who said:

“Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore.”

We have heard today some moving accounts of individual and collective suffering in different regions of the country and among different sections of the public. We should be asking ourselves why, oh why, have we been delivered into this misery, which looks as if it will extend over years. Much of the conversation we have heard has been along the lines of aggregates, coarse economic aggregates, and has tended to stray away from individual choices and consequences. We have talked about markets in the abstract, and it is a pity that we seem to have forgotten that markets are a social phenomenon, and that they are about people co-operating. When we talk about markets, we tend to imagine overpaid people, high-frequency trading and those who add nothing to society.

I am reminded of something a constituent said to me recently after hearing a Minister’s speech. He asked, “Why is it that everything always seems to get harder for the working man, whoever is in power?” Indeed, in my constituency unemployment is up by 6.3% among the over-50s, up by 9.5% among those aged 25 to 49 and, scandalously, up by 23% among the young. We have heard that child poverty increased by 200,000 under the previous Government and that it is likely to increase by up to 100,000 under this Government. In the 21st century, that should not be our economic position.

Why are we in this debt crisis? I have just checked the M4 money supply figures—I am sorry to return to aggregates, but needs must. When Labour came to power the money supply was about £700 billion and it is now about £2.1 trillion, so it has tripled over the past 14 years. Unfortunately, most economists talk about money flowing into the economy as if it were water poured into a tank that found its own level immediately, but what if it is like treacle or honey? What if it builds up in piles when poured into the economy and takes a while to spread out? What if that money was loaned into existence in response to individual choices led by the excessively low interest rates pushed by the central bank? What if it was loaned into existence in particular sectors, such as the housing sector, where prices have more than doubled over the same period, and what if it was the financial sector that received the benefit of that new money first? Would that not explain why financiers and bankers are so much wealthier than everyone else, and why economic activity and wealth has been reorientated towards the south-east?

Unfortunately, the idea that money takes some time to move around the economy is lost on most economists, which I very much regret. Why did most economists not see the crisis coming? I put it to the House that it is because their theories of credit are mistaken. They make fundamental errors. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into that, but the fundamental point is that credit is a choice to consume more now and less later. It is about the exchange of present goods for future goods, and co-ordinating the economy through time, and I am afraid that the current intellectual mainstream in economics has dropped us into this desperate mess.

Opposition Members criticise the Thatcher and Reagan years. I think that there was much to applaud in those years, but unfortunately their intellectual underpinning was monetarism, which, like Keynesianism, is infected with those dreadful mistakes. People in the Occupy movement, and our constituents, are right to question the justice of our economic processes. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said earlier that the system cannot endure, and I am inclined to agree. I agree that the current debt-based and—I am afraid to say—statist system cannot endure. However, if this system is not to endure, which way should it fall? Humanity tried the statist direction in the past and it led to misery and murder. I stand for free markets and free co-operation, but I say this to the House: if this is capitalism, I am not a capitalist.

Jobs and Growth

Steve Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), and I share some of his concerns about the outright dominance of the City. I wish to draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests in relation to Cobden Partners.

We are in the midst of this jobs and growth crisis, so I feel that we should ask ourselves where jobs and growth came from, where they have gone and where they will come from in future. We know that this is a debt crisis, so why did people borrow so much and save too little? It was because interest rates were too low for too long. Anybody who has a savings account or a mortgage will know that it is the Bank of England which in the UK determines the height of the interest rates market. The set-up of our monetary system means that money is loaned into existence. It has been an institutionally inflationary monetary system since the end of Bretton Woods.

My argument, which is one Hayek advanced in his Nobel lecture, is that when employment comes from an increase in the money supply, that employment lasts only as long as the money supply increases, or perhaps only as long as it continues to accelerate. My preferred measure of the money supply comes from Kaleidic Economics. If we look at it, we find that from 2002 the money supply not only increased, but accelerated in its increase—the level was above 10% from 2004 and in 2007 it went as high as 27% by that measure. The money supply is now contracting at a rate of about 5% a year.

I am delighted to see the previous Chancellor in his place, because had he accepted my intervention earlier I would have said to him that at the time he left power there did appear to be growth, but that it was simply quantitative easing washing through the system, distorting the overall GDP numbers and causing the impression of growth. In fact, we had further money entering the system, distorting the structure of relative prices and making the problem worse later.

If we examine the Office for National Statistics price index going back to 1750—at least one of my hon. Friends will remember—we find that we have had the most astonishing currency debasement since 1971. Indeed, in the 19th century prices experienced secular deflation, and had an ordinary person saved £1 in 1800, they would have been able to buy a larger basket of goods with it in 1900. Had that person saved £1 in 1971, they would be extremely disappointed today.

Inflation is not harmless. It widens wealth inequality and creates patterns of employment that are sustained only by increases in the money supply. For those of us who are sincerely concerned about jobs and growth, it is time to consider whether we should not expect to create employment simply by increasing the money supply. It seems to me that we are now boxed into a corner. We know that we have got into this mess through low interest rates, yet we cannot now afford to allow interest rates to rise—far too many people are far too indebted. That leaves the Government with something of a problem and I think they are right to think extremely carefully about how we can achieve deleveraging. The Chancellor is correct, and has been for some time, to call for an economy based on “save and invest” and on real productive savings. It does not do to expand the money supply in excess of real savings, by which I mean prior production and consumption that is less than that production. The accumulation of capital is the only sustainable way to raise real wages for normal people.

I encourage the Government to stick to their policy of encouraging save and invest, but I express misgivings about quantitative easing. I ask them to look at the theories of the monetary effects on the trade cycle and whether patterns of employment have been sustained by increases in the money supply. As we go forward, I ask them to consider extremely carefully whether we need to go somewhat further than Vickers in creating the right monetary system on which to build a sustainable economy.

Independent Banking Commission Report

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I, too, used the phrase “back-stop” in the statement. Vickers recommends that the changes be completed by 2019, but also recommended in his press conference that they be legislated for in this Parliament and that some of the changes might take place before that. We need to consider all these issues, but I think we need to pay attention to the 2019 date that Vickers sets out in his report.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chancellor on this report, but I believe it takes for granted the adequacy of accounting standards. Will he look again at the incentives and risks inherent in the international financial reporting standard?

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, I will certainly do that. One of the discussions going on in international circles at the moment is how to make all the various standard-setting bodies more accountable. They are very powerful institutions now and they are not really accountable to national Parliaments or international bodies that represent national Governments. Discussion is going on about how the Financial Stability Board, which is the organisation that brings together different banking areas and different countries to discuss regulation, might be able to make the international accounting standards more accountable.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

There is huge uncertainty because of the damage caused by the initial tax imposition and the tax system proposed in the Bill, but discussions about what is to happen in 2013-14 are taking place now. The sooner the Government can give us an indication of what they intend to offer in field allowances the better it will be, not just for the individual companies involved but for the country, because investment from abroad is desperately needed.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

As I listened to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speak to amendment 15, I thought that my ears were deceiving me because I felt so much sympathy for what he was saying. Indeed, he put me in mind of a book by a reformed Trotskyite, James Burnham, who predicted in “The Managerial Revolution” the system of capitalism—the set of structures—that we now recognise in publicly listed companies. My discomfort evaporated, however, when I realised that the hon. Gentleman was defending the interests of the owners of capital.

[John McDonnell]

Some of us are not completely reformed.

[Steve Baker]

In that case, I am delighted that we are on opposite sides of the Chamber.

It is strange that capitalism has come to this: that, nowadays, the owners of capital need to be defended by the House from their own directors. If I have understood the amendment correctly, it would mean that the change in the main rate for 2011 would not come into force until legislation had provided arrangements for shareholders to approve their directors’ remuneration. It is almost incredible that such an arrangement does not already exist.

We must reunite ownership control and the risk taken with capital, and I believe that the amendment goes to the heart of one of the problems of our capitalist system. I am not sure that it would achieve the aim that the hon. Gentleman has set out because it might not affect the rate for 2011, and I therefore cannot support it. Nevertheless, I think it is an extremely good idea, and I urge the Government to consider it.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I support amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a shareholder in Shell and a vice-chair of the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group.

The key aim of the amendment is to introduce damage limitation and to rebuild the confidence and trust among investors that the country needs if we are to maximise the benefits of our own oil and gas. The oil and gas under the ground does not provide us with any jobs, tax or security of supply. Those are produced only when it comes out of the ground, and, although it belongs to the nation, we can get it out of the ground only through the expertise and skill of people from my constituency and throughout the country. They apply their knowledge by way of the investment provided by risk capital, and the investors must know, as far as possible, in what climate they are operating and what returns they will obtain. The kind of risk that we rely on their taking is illustrated by a field in the North sea where the geology suggested that three platforms would be enough to sustain production and provide all the necessary equipment. Only when they started extracting the oil did they discover that there was much more sulphur in some parts of the field than in others and that they needed to build a fourth platform at a cost of £1 billion. Such extra risk taken by investors—not by the Government or the taxpayer—must be recognised as being of great importance to our country’s success in this regard.

Last week, we held a reception in Parliament for Subsea UK to highlight an industry that has developed into a jewel in the crown of this country, yielding £6 billion in production from under the sea through engineering skill, half of which is exported from this country. The United Kingdom is responsible for one third of the world’s subsea engineering; we therefore have something very important to nurture and build on.

The field allowance discussions are an important means of trying to unlock some of the fields that will be negatively affected by what has been proposed. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon emphasised a longer term risk that needs to be addressed: the risk not to the projects that are unwinding now and in the next two years, which already had the momentum of contracts signed and delivered before the tax was changed, but to those that will be decided in the culture and investment climate prevailing in the aftermath of the tax. That is why these talks are so important in rebuilding trust and a constructive engagement.

I welcome the fact that industry and Government appear to be addressing the need for constructive engagement, and any updates from Ministers as to how we are progressing in rebuilding trust will be very important. We must remember that the reputations of the country managers—the people in this country who work for the multinational companies and the investors abroad—has been damaged by what happened. They have been encouraging their investors to invest in this country in one set of circumstances, only for the goalposts to be shifted. They need trust and confidence in them to be restored if they are going to persuade their investors abroad—in Calgary and elsewhere—to invest again in our country so we can build on the potential that exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I know that my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are watching this debate very closely and will have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s representations. I noticed that when he referred to the House as a whole, he gestured to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. Whether the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend necessarily represent the views of the House as a whole on all issues I am not sure, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point.

[Steve Baker]

May I say that I think the reason for this unlikely alliance is that the workers now are the capitalists through their pension funds and other investments? I remember a trade unionist explaining to me with some care the new movement for workers’ capital and I think we will be missing a trick as a free-market Government, if indeed we are a free-market Government, if we do not recognise that the workers now are the owners and that we need to help them take control of what they own.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is trying to lose the support of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on this, but I fully take his point on board and I shall ensure that BIS is aware of this debate. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has said that shareholder accountability is an area that his Department will be looking into in the autumn.

Private Finance Initiative

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Neil Carmichael]

Devon: it gets better! My hon. Friend made that point rather well. It certainly needs to be considered, as specifying and procurement are critical.

We also need to understand value for money. Most PFI schemes under the previous Government did not seem to do so. The next big task is to define value for money. That will be helped if we get the data right and if we understand the systems in each project. Many people talk about the difficulties of PFI schemes in hospitals. I am not surprised, given that many hospitals cannot even tell you the cost of an operation. We need more data. If we have much more information about what is happening, it will inform the debate about value for money.

Another big problem is the lack of accountability in the decision-making process. I said that it is important to specify and procure properly, but if we do not hold those who do the specifying or procuring properly to account we will have only ourselves to blame. We need systems to ensure that specifications are clear and all-inclusive and produce the right procurement. We then need to ensure the right attitude to procurement, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat).

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me telling a small anecdote. I remember being told a story by one of the famous bomber command air officers. When talking about procurement, he said, “The thing to do is not to make a small mistake, because if you do they can pursue you for it. The thing to do is to make an enormous mistake.” Is that not part of the problem? Enormous mistakes are being made, and we cannot possibly hold individual officials or politicians to account for such giant sums.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I do not like any mistakes; I do not like small ones, but I especially dislike big ones. We need a system that allows fewer of both, but particularly large ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and I will try not to attribute too many of the flaws in PFI to you.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I would be grateful.

[Steve Baker]

I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing the debate, and to pay tribute to his leadership, his courage and his intellect. As I listened to the debate, I noticed a strange thing: Conservatives verging on sounding like anti-capitalists.

[Lorely Burt]

Never!

[Steve Baker]

And indeed Liberals seem to have spoken as anti-liberals. I am perplexed by that. I would like to develop one point: how PFI fits into the nature of our society. I am reminded of something that Churchill said, which I think speaks to the third way. He said:

“Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk.”

I will come back to how he finished the quote at the end. It strikes me that the third way seems to have turned private enterprise into a vampire squid to be suckered on to the faces of people on normal and low incomes.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend wishes to respect contract. Given that the world contains imperfect self-interested people, and given that we have imperfect knowledge of the world, it is important that we are secure in the institutions that we create and in which we operate. Therefore, I am delighted that my hon. Friend emphasised the need to respect contract and to seek voluntary renegotiation. I was particularly impressed that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) hinted at the need for a moral basis on which to operate in capitalism and society. It is necessary that people do not simply blame procurement processes—much as they are an institutional factor—but look to themselves to behave decently.

There are many questions that we could discuss: who provides, who pays, where risk lies. However, I would just like to develop one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who said that fat cats are getting fatter at public expense. I believe that is broadly his remark. That reminded me of an old picture of the ancien régime in France, where the bureaucrats and princelings were riding on the backs of the poor. From what we have heard from Members of all parties, it seems that today we have a regime where the state and the clients of the state ride on the backs of everybody else.

It is strange that so much money is being funnelled to firms whose commercial risks are being underwritten by the power to tax. Far from protecting the poor, the state now seems to be an institution for protecting the rich from the risks they take with their own investments. I am a capitalist, and I believe that capitalism requires entrepreneurs and investors to bear their own risks. Somehow, through all this mire and mess that we find ourselves in, we need to recover the principles of a free society and a vision of a capitalism that works, and works for everybody.

The state has become an enormous player in society. It spends about half of national income, and we have ended up with far too many investors and companies looking to the state for its decisions. Where will it spend? What will it spend that money on? Whose risks will it underwrite? And so on and so on. It really is no good. If we wish to call this a free society—one in which people make their own way and flourish—we really do have to end the notion of the state as a giant player in society. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at different times, has declared that the era of big government is over. I think that he is absolutely right, and I am delighted that that is the thrust of the Government’s direction of travel.

I think that the British public have a fantastic sense of fair play—that is one reason why Private Eye sells so well. I would like to share with the Government the final line of Churchill’s quote:

“Not enough people see it”—

capitalism—

“as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon”.

I congratulate the Government on bringing forward their paper, “Making Savings in Operational PFI Contracts”, but I urge them to go further, to try to recover that sense of fair play and regenerate those institutions of a free and fair society which support capitalism and support human flourishing, but above all, pass that Private Eye test.

Regulatory and Banking Reform

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The reforms we have set out are proportionate, and the recognition of the need to strengthen the banking sector through structural reform is a significant move. We, unlike many other economies, were exposed to a financial sector challenge of some scale, and it is right to respond to that. We have ensured a proper debate about those issues, which the Independent Commission on Banking has led, and the reforms announced in its interim report have been widely welcomed. That gets the balance right. It is not about being tough or about being light touch; it is about getting things right.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Do the Government agree that the best form of regulation is exit from the market? Does the Financial Secretary agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) that there should be a primary duty on the regulator to promote competition?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about exit. One area on which we are all working, not just in the UK but elsewhere, is to ensure that, when an institution fails, the matter can be resolved and that the resolution can take place without an impact on the taxpayer. That will help with competition and to tackle the broader issues, whereby taxpayers have to stand behind banks. We need to get that right.

On competition, we need to recognise that the role of regulation in financial services is quite broad. Some of it is about promoting competition, and some of it is about consumer protection when there are asymmetries of information. In the blueprint that we have published today, we see an acknowledgement of the role that competition will play, and that is why we have given the Financial Conduct Authority a primary duty to use competition in pursuit of its regulatory objectives. That gets the balance right between the different roles that the FCA has to play.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Steve Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Bank of England’s forecasts have not always been as accurate as one might have hoped, but that proves my point: there could well be conflict between the Bank’s forecasts and the OBR’s forecasts. It is therefore right to ask what the Government would do in such circumstances. Would such a disagreement discredit the Bank of England’s forecasts? Will the OBR be seen as the ultimate arbiter on such matters, or will the Government be able to pick and choose whichever forecast suits their purposes?

Chapter 3 of the charter and the Government’s objectives for fiscal policy are obviously at the core of the document. Some of the provisions in the charter might not be entirely necessary, however. For example, it places the Treasury under a duty to prepare a Budget report for each financial year, which one would hope would happen without it being told to do so. We acknowledge, however, that including the Government’s fiscal mandate in the charter and consequently requiring any modifications to be laid before the House is a welcome step. We hope that it will enhance Government accountability, although that should not be taken as an endorsement of the Government’s economic policy or of their fiscal policy objectives.

Regrettably, given that economic growth has flat-lined under this Government and that forecasts have repeatedly had to be downgraded, it remains to be seen whether the Government are meeting their stated objectives—particularly that of supporting confidence in the economy. Nevertheless, we approve of the idea of working towards maintaining confidence in the economy. The charter rightly acknowledges that achieving that must be the responsibility of the Government and not of the OBR.

The second objective, that of promoting inter-generational fairness, is much more contentious, and it has been challenged here and in the other place. It is not at all clear from the document what the Government mean by the term, although from the Minister’s comments tonight and on previous occasions, I assume that it refers to passing debt from one generation to another, rather than to passing on wealth, advantage and opportunity from one generation to another. If that is indeed the case, and the objective refers simply to inherited debt, it would appear that the Government under this Chancellor’s leadership have an exceptionally narrow conception of fairness which does not chime with most people’s understanding of the world.

We should not be surprised by that, however, given the Government’s record on fairness to date. A Government who choose to take £7 billion of much-needed support from children in their first Budget and comprehensive spending review—three times the amount that they thought appropriate for bankers to pay—who choose to target women for spending cuts, who choose to penalise people on lower incomes, and who choose the regressive measure of increasing VAT can hardly be considered fair.

Earlier today, many of us met constituents supporting the Hardest Hit campaign for people with severe disabilities and chronic illnesses, and I would ask the Government to explain to them how making people with disabilities and chronic illnesses pay the price for the financial crisis is fair. One of the constituents I met today is registered blind and has a guide dog, but she has been told that she is not eligible for the higher rate of disability living allowance. She used to work for a bank, and she wants to know why she is paying a bigger price for the financial crisis than her former bosses in that industry.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not realise that the financial crisis is the product of deficit, debt and debasement—in other words, Government policy.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The financial crisis was global and it started in the US. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the banks did not play a role in creating that financial crisis and that people such as my constituent, who are struggling to get by on disability living allowance and a modest income, were responsible for it?

[Steve Baker]

I know that the crisis originated in the banks, but it did so because of currency debasement, which was a result of deficit spending—a Government policy.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We cannot get into a whole debate about macro-economic policy. Needless to say, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of how the financial crisis occurred. The point I was making—the intervention was not particularly relevant to it—was that this Government’s action in reducing the deficit too far and too fast is hitting people at the bottom end of the income scale far harder than it is hitting people such as bankers. If the Government were to adopt our suggestion of introducing a banking bonus tax again this year, as we did last year, they would not have to make cuts that hit people at the bottom so hard.