Category: Economy

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    The text of the speech made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls for the Government to abandon its one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the Coronavirus Job Retention and Self-Employment Income Support Schemes, and instead offer targeted income support to businesses and self-employed people in those sectors of the economy that have been hardest hit by the virus and are most in need of continuing assistance, and in those areas of the country which have been placed under local restrictions due to rising rates of infection.

    Our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis—a crisis that will intensify if the Conservative Government do not change course. Between April and June this year, the number of people in work fell by the largest amount in over a decade. By July, there were nearly three quarters of a million fewer employees on the payroll than there were just four months earlier. We know that these are extraordinary times. That is why Labour has acted as a constructive Opposition, working with the Government, businesses and trade unions to do all we can to save lives and livelihoods. But it is not enough for the Government now to say simply that this is an unprecedented crisis and that only so much can be done to mitigate the damage. In their amendment to this Opposition day motion, the Conservatives maintain that

    “any deviation”—

    I repeat, any—

    “from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”

    Some humility, willingness to listen and flexibility is desperately required here.

    Under this Government, the UK has suffered the highest number of excess deaths in Europe. It has experienced both the worst quarterly fall in GDP in Europe and the worst quarterly fall among all G7 nations. The evidence suggests that the number of job vacancies in the UK has fallen further than in any comparable economy and that it will take us many months to get back to pre-crisis levels.

    Our people have suffered a double whammy: a health crisis coupled with a jobs crisis, both made worse, I regret to say, by the Government’s unwillingness to listen, learn and accept that they do not always know best. But there is still time to change course. Around 4 million people are still furloughed under the Government’s coronavirus job retention scheme. Another 2.7 million people have so far made claims under the self-employment income support scheme, the second and final phase of which has just opened. Many more people have not yet had any support from this Government at all and have fallen through the gaps between the various schemes.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    The hon. Member is making a really powerful point. Does she agree that a huge injustice is being done to the self-employed, many of whom have gone for six months without any support whatsoever? These are our small business owners who take some of their salary and dividends for perfectly ​good reason. Does she agree that the Government should take their fingers out of their ears and start listening to the self-employed?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with her. We have repeatedly raised that issue with the Government. Repeatedly we have been told that the computer says no—that no response is possible. That does not appear to be the case given the evidence. There would be means to assess people’s previous income. If there is a concern around fraud, ultimately additional deterrents can be added to the system to prevent any such fraud.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will give way, but I am aware that there are many, many speakers for this debate, so I wish not to do that too frequently.

    Mr Dhesi

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Given the importance of the aviation sector, which has been particularly hard hit, the likes of myself have been calling for an extension of the furlough scheme and a sector-specific deal. However, due to Government inaction and procrastination, thousands of individuals within my Slough constituency are now being made redundant, or are on the verge of being made redundant. Does she agree that it is now time for the Government to act before we lose those jobs for good?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The jobs crisis that we are talking about is particularly intense in many of those communities impacted by the withdrawal of support for industries critical for the future of our country. Of course, as he mentioned, we were promised a sector-specific deal for aviation. We have not received it. We have not had the Government sitting down with the sector to work through the different scenarios and how we can plan for the future in that case. And we are not seeing the targeted wage support in aviation or, indeed, in other industries critical for the economic future that we desperately need.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will take one final intervention, given that it is from the Government Benches, but then I will make some progress.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I am grateful. On a sector-based approach, I think that, in an interview with The Guardian, the hon. Member said that such an approach would pose challenges. Has she yet published the solution to those challenges?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I fear that the hon. Member may have missed off the end of the sentence, which is that, while it poses challenges, ultimately that does not mean that those challenges should not be stepped up to—they should be faced up to by the Government. His Government have accepted the need for some targeted support for hospitality and retail with the grants. There is also the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Yes, there will be boundary issues. We fully accept that, but, ultimately, to govern is ​to lead. It is to take difficult decisions. The Government trumpet the fact that they worked with industry, with trade unions and with other stakeholders in creating the furlough scheme. They need to do that again to work through these challenges and to create the targeted system of support that is needed.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will make some progress if the Member will permit me. He may find the answers to his questions—any further ones—in what I am going on to say.

    In addition to those groups of people who I have just mentioned, we know that there are many others who are concerned about their futures working in parts of the UK that are still subject to local restrictions, or that may be subject to additional restrictions in the future. We also have huge numbers of people, as we have just been discussing, who work in sectors that are still not back to business as usual, despite their critical importance for our economic future—whether we are talking about highly skilled manufacturing or the creative industries—yet the Chancellor is ploughing ahead with this one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the income support schemes, pulling the rug from under thousands of businesses and millions of workers all at the same time, irrespective of their situation. He is doing so without any analysis, it appears, of the impact of this withdrawal on unemployment levels and the enormous long-term costs of so many people being driven out of work.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    One of the categories that comes under severe pressures, as the shadow Minister and others in this House will know, is local councils. Their staff have been furloughed and they are having to take them back but their budgets are squeezed. Does she support my plea that additional help must be given to those councils to protect and retain jobs, because people are operating as a skeleton staff for almost a standard level of service provision, and it is just not possible to deliver that?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. The Government promised local authorities that they would meet their calls to back-fill not just the spending that they have incurred during this period but the income that was lost. What do we have instead? We have a resiling from that promise. That is problematic because of the huge impact it will have on employment in different areas—local authority employment can be a critical part of many economies—but it is also an enormous issue for the economic development in those areas, where ultimately the lack of local leadership will be a huge problem. The Government need to hold to their promise in that regard.

    Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)

    The shadow Chancellor says that she wants to extend the furlough scheme, but the key question is: how long for? The Chancellor said when he announced it that it would end in October. If it is October, the shadow Chancellor says it should be November; if it is November, then she says December. If she wants a sector-specific scheme, when does it end—at the end of the crisis, as some of her colleagues have said? Is that when the virus is eradicated? What is the solution?

    Anneliese Dodds

    With all due respect to the hon. Member, he may have missed what I said. We believe that the Government need to sit down and talk to exactly the stakeholders they trumpeted so much about working with when they created the furlough scheme, so that it can provide the system of support that is necessary to protect jobs and protect our economic capacity. As I have said time and again, we do not believe that a continuation of the furlough scheme precisely as it stands now is what is required. We need a targeted wage support scheme, which is exactly the approach being taken by huge numbers of other countries but which this Government are turning their face against.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will make some progress because I am aware that so many Members want to speak on this critical subject.

    For some businesses and staff well on their way back to normal, it is absolutely right and proper that wage support ends. As I said, we are not arguing for a continuation of the furlough scheme exactly as it stands across every sector of the economy, but for others, many of which are sectors crucial to our country’s economic future, additional targeted support could be the difference between survival and going under.

    The Chancellor says that he wants to pick winners, but the necessary public health measures that his Government have enacted have created losers. Across the economy as a whole, about one in 10 workers are still furloughed. For the transport sector, it is closer to one in five. For arts and entertainment, it is one in two. Yet he is stubbornly insisting on treating every part of the economy as if it is in exactly the same situation, and in doing so putting the recovery and millions of people’s livelihoods at risk. A targeted extension of Government wage support to enable short-hours working does not mean extending support for everyone forever; it means targeting it at where it is needed most.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    With respect, I will not give way as I have done so many times and I am aware of the time pressure with many Members wishing to participate in this debate.

    We need support that is targeted to the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit by the virus but are critical to our country’s economic future; to areas of the country that are subject to local restrictions because of this Government’s failure to get a proper grip on the health crisis; and to businesses that would be viable in ordinary times, employing people doing jobs they love, but just need a little more help to get through this crisis. These are people like those I spoke to over the summer in north Wales working in advanced manufacturing. They do not want a permanent handout from Government, just more support while the economy is still in dire straits to help them get back on their feet. Without that support now, jobs like theirs will take years to come back. Jobs in the supply chain linked to their plant will vanish too, and with them the economic prospects for their communities.

    I called on the Chancellor to be more flexible when he gave his summer economic statement in this House two months ago. What do we get instead? A panicked ​handout of £1,000 bonuses to any business, anywhere, that brought back a furloughed employee. That is too much public money to dole out to a business that was going to bring back workers anyway. The Chancellor allocated £9.4 billion for that bonus scheme. Let us just imagine how much more effectively that money could be spent if only he had thought flexibly about how to respond to the crisis. Let us imagine how many of those at-risk jobs could be saved. The economic reality simply does not support the approach the Chancellor is taking, and he should have the courage to recognise that and change course.

    The Chancellor may not wish to take our word for it that a targeted, flexible form of wage support is the right way to go, but he could at least be persuaded by the examples of other countries, such as Germany and France, which have each extended their schemes to last for two years; the Netherlands, which has extended its scheme for a further nine months; or Australia and Ireland, both of which have committed to support furloughed workers until March next year. Of course, in our own United Kingdom the devolved Governments have called for targeted wage support to be continued, not snatched away at the same pace across all sectors of our economy.

    If that is not good enough for the Chancellor, he could listen to trade unions or think-tanks—after all, he trumpeted working with trade unions to create the furlough scheme in the first place. He could listen to the TUC, which has proposed a job retention and upskilling scheme; the Institute for Public Policy Research, which has advocated a coronavirus work sharing scheme; or the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has suggested a covid-19 job support scheme.

    If that is not compelling enough, perhaps the Chancellor could heed the voice of business. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that

    “businesses across the UK are going to need further support to weather uncertainty over the coming months.”

    Make UK has called for

    “an extension of the Job Retention Scheme to those sectors which are not just our most important but who have been hit hardest.”

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    If I may, I will finish this point and then take one more intervention; I do not want to frustrate all those colleagues who wish to speak in this debate. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that

    “it is time for the Government to bring forward a rescue package for those who have been left out.”

    The Institute of Directors has said that the Chancellor’s bonus scheme would

    “do little to prevent job losses”—

    and that—

    “some form of an extension to the furlough scheme should remain on the table.”

    The CBI has been clear:

    “It’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October.”

    The Chancellor likes to think that he has the ear of business, but it is clear that he is just not listening when business tells him to change course.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    The shadow Chancellor makes some fair points, particularly about working constructively with government. On that basis, should she not constructively set out her solution to these problems, rather than simply saying that the Government should solve them? Obviously, she has ideas of how to solve them, so why does she not publish solutions?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I would love it, frankly, if the Chancellor and his team wished to open talks with the Opposition, with business, with trade unions, looking at the different options that I have just set out. I know the hon. Gentleman is one who does look at detail. I have just set out a variety of different models that have been set out by business, trade unions and think tanks. We want to work with government on this. If he is signalling that he wishes that discussion to happen, I hope that his Front-Bench colleagues will take that invitation up as well. It is not just he who wishes to have that discussion with his Front-Bench team. I note that a huge number of Conservative Members want to participate in this debate, and I am keen to hear their thoughts on it. Some of their colleagues have already pronounced on it. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has said that there should be

    “targeted extensions to the furlough scheme beyond October.”

    The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has said that he can see the case for it, too. How many more Conservative Members are worried, privately, about the impact on their constituents of this Chancellor pushing stubbornly ahead with his plan to take support away from everyone, all at once?

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    I recall the Chancellor saying that he would do “whatever it takes”. The hospitality and tourism sector, which covers a quarter of the jobs in my constituency, is now entering its third winter in a row, as the sector puts it. Should not support be targeted at that sector, too?

    Anneliese Dodds

    My hon. Friend has been such a champion for those jobs in York and, indeed, for jobs throughout the country. I say to her exactly what businesses in tourism right across the UK have been saying to me when I have spoken to them: they do not want a handout; they just want a fair chance. If they end up having to close their businesses—if they end up having to lay off staff—it will take a very long time to build those businesses back up again. The Government should be listening to them.

    Indeed, the Government should be listening, as I said, to the Government Members who are concerned about the withdrawal of the scheme. More than half a million at-risk jobs belong to people living in the constituencies of the Chancellor’s newest colleagues on the Government Benches—over 18,000 in Burton, more than 20,000 in Watford and in excess of 21,000 in Milton Keynes North—but so far, the Chancellor is not listening. Of course, he has not come to the Chamber today to hear what Members have to say about the very real fears of their constituents. We have not heard him speak in the House since the summer recess, despite the fact that our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis.

    The Labour party, trade unions, think-tanks, business and even the Chancellor’s own Back Benchers can all see that what the Government are doing will make our ​jobs crisis worse and lead to untold misery for millions of people, as well as reducing our economic capacity for the future. We are all sounding the alarm; the question is: what will it take for this Government to listen?

  • Emily Thornberry – 2020 Comments on Tony Abbott and the Car Industry

    Emily Thornberry – 2020 Comments on Tony Abbott and the Car Industry

    The comments made by Emily Thornberry, the Shadow International Trade Secretary, on 4 September 2020.

    From the first moment Tony Abbott was proposed for this role on Britain’s Board of Trade, I’ve said we need to judge him not just on his despicable personal history of offensive statements and views, but on his equally dismal professional record as well.

    Tony Abbott wilfully destroyed what was left of Australia’s car industry after taking office in 2013, with the calculated withdrawal of government support, and the deliberate goading of overseas investors to quit. A once proud industry employing 200,000 workers was left to die.

    We cannot have a man like that in charge of trade talks which will have a direct bearing on the future of British car manufacturing in Sunderland, Solihull, Ellesmere Port, Halewood, Burnaston, Oxford and elsewhere, especially when the industry is already under huge economic pressure.

    I’ve been saying for the past week we need to listen to the Australians who know Abbott best, and they are warning us loud and clear: do not let this man do to your car industry what he did to ours.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on a Youth Unemployment Scheme

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on a Youth Unemployment Scheme

    The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 2 September 2020.

    Labour has repeatedly called for a youth employment scheme that matches the scale of today’s jobs crisis, just as the Future Jobs Fund did at the time of the global financial crash.

    The Labour Government in Wales has done just that with its Jobs Growth Wales scheme: bringing local authorities, employers, trade unions and other stakeholders together to help young people into work without impacting older workers.

    But the Conservative government’s Kickstart scheme, which has been delayed, already looks like it lacks that cross-organisational coordination. It will only work if employers and jobseekers have clarity and confidence that the scheme will lead to meaningful work. The Government can’t afford to get this wrong.

  • Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on Workers Returning to Offices

    Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on Workers Returning to Offices

    The comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Minister for Business and Consumers, on 27 August 2020.

    It beggars belief that the Government are threatening people like this during a pandemic. Forcing people to choose between their health and their job is unconscionable. Number 10 should condemn this briefing and categorically rule out any such campaign.

  • Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on the Automotive Sector

    Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on the Automotive Sector

    Comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Minister for Business and Consumers, on 27 August 2020.

    The UK’s world-leading automotive industry has been rocked by coronavirus and livelihoods are on the line. But Ministers won’t listen to reason and are refusing to recognise some sectors have been hit harder than others.

    They must urgently target support at the sectors that need it with a focus on creating skilled, green jobs – and do right by the communities across the UK they promised to protect.

    Anything less would be a betrayal of many communities which helped get Boris Johnson elected.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Payments to Those Self-Isolating

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Payments to Those Self-Isolating

    The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 27 August 2020.

    Effective local lockdowns depend on people self-isolating when they’re supposed to. Labour has been warning for months that the Government needs to make sure that people can afford to do the right thing, but once again Ministers have taken far too long to realise there’s a problem.

    Just last week the Chancellor suggested there was no need to change the system for people who have to self-isolate. Now the Health Secretary – who confessed that Statutory Sick Pay in the UK isn’t enough to live on – thinks the solution is to offer people who aren’t currently eligible the same limited level of support.

    It’s concerning that this will only apply to a limited number of areas with high rates of Covid-19. The instruction to self-isolate applies to everyone in the country, so everyone should get the support they need to self-isolate.

  • Jonathan Reynolds – 2020 Comments on Potential Number of Redundancies

    Jonathan Reynolds – 2020 Comments on Potential Number of Redundancies

    The comments made by Jonathan Reynolds, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on 23 August 2020.

    Every job lost is a tragedy and we must do all we can to safeguard people’s livelihoods.

    We are in the midst of a jobs crisis right across the UK but these figures show certain areas are more at risk than others. The Government’s one size fits all approach will see some communities hit harder and they must adopt a more tailored approach now if we are to avoid further job losses.

  • Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on “Jobs Meltdown”

    Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on “Jobs Meltdown”

    Comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Minister for Business and Consumers, on 22 August 2020.

    With the UK now in recession, Ministers must do all they can to stave off disaster on the high street. They have a week to change tack, and prevent shuttered high streets and a jobs meltdown. Rather than claw back these funds, Ministers should back the high street and save jobs now.

    Many businesses are still in distress, with many still fully or partially shut down because of the continuing public health emergency. It’s vital that the government doesn’t think it’s job done when so many jobs and businesses are on the line.

  • Mark Hoban – 2011 Speech at the British Bankers Association

    Mark Hoban – 2011 Speech at the British Bankers Association

    The speech made by Mark Hoban, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 2 March 2011.

    Good afternoon.

    I’d like to start by saying that it’s a pleasure to be here today, less than a fortnight after the Government launched its latest consultation on financial regulation.

    And I’m delighted that the early reaction to the consultation has been so positive.

    Since May of last year, we’ve certainly come far.

    But of course, we still have some way to go before this legislation is ready for the statute books.

    And it’s for this reason we’ve decided that draft legislation should be subject to intensive pre-legislative scrutiny.

    To get the draft Bill ready in time for scrutiny, we’ve had to shorten the period of consultation by a few weeks.

    But we’re making every effort to ensure that all interested parties have the chance to help inform our thinking….

    …through events like this; upcoming roundtable discussions and forthcoming meetings.

    Today I want to concentrate on our proposals for the new Financial Conduct Authority.

    But before I delve into this detail, I think it would be helpful if I outline a bit of the context.

    Domestic Regulatory Reform – Where The FCA fits in

    During the financial crisis the regulatory foundations laid by the previous administration were tried, and found to be sorely wanting.

    As the pressure began to mount, cracks rapidly spread, exposing the structural flaws in the regulatory architecture.

    And it was the taxpayer who was forced to intervene, to prop up the financial system, and prevent it from total collapse.

    This is a situation we simply can’t afford to repeat.

    So we’re putting in place a new regulatory architecture – one that will ensure all regulation of the financial system is effectively targeted.

    As a first step, we are creating a single, dedicated, macro-prudential regulator.

    … to ensure that any risks developing across the financial system are identified and dealt with.

    This new body is the Financial Policy Committee – who, as part of the Bank of England, will have chief responsibility for maintaining financial stability and addressing systemic risk.

    The interim FPC has now been appointed and will meet for the first time soon.

    And at a more micro level, we’re setting up the Prudential Regulation Authority – as an operationally independent subsidiary of the Bank – with responsibility for prudential regulation of deposit takers and insurers.

    By bringing together both micro and macro-prudential regulation under one roof, we will improve the coordination and coherence of financial supervision.

    Why the Government is setting up the FCA

    But that’s not the end of the story.

    Far from it in fact.

    If we’re to improve sustainability and resilience of the financial system, it’s vital that we safeguard the interests of savers, investors, and borrowers.

    If customers have confidence in regulation, then they are more likely to invest, save and plan for the future.

    So alongside a more secure regulatory base, we need a financial sector that works for everyone – that earns our confidence, competes for our services, and keeps us properly informed.

    Which is why we’re setting up the new Financial Conduct Authority.

    This new body will monitor the behaviour of all financial institutions – from the smallest retail credit union, to the very largest investment bank.

    Yes, I recognise this is quite a broad church.

    And that’s why a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach just wouldn’t work.

    Instead, the FCA will use its own judgment – its own discretion – to ascertain the level of intervention needed across different markets.

    Whether in the retail, wholesale, or markets sphere – this new regulator’s actions will be guided by a single ambition: to protect and enhance confidence in the UK’s financial system.

    Which will be complemented by three operational objectives.

    The first of these is to facilitate efficiency and choice.

    This will provide the impetus to bring down costs.

    Improve consumer outcomes.

    And ensure that there’s a wide-range of products, services and providers available on the market.

    The FCA’s second operational objective is to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.

    So that the products they invest in, are the products that are advertised.

    Where financial information isn’t misleading, disingenuous, or ill-informed.

    And where people understand the risks that they’re undertaking.

    Let me be clear, what is appropriate protection for a customer taking out a mortgage will not be the same as for an investment bank hedging its interest rate exposures.

    And “appropriate” for retail consumers doesn’t mean they should not take on responsibility for their actions

    And finally, the third operational objective of the FCA is to preserve market integrity.

    To protect and enhance the soundness, stability and resilience of our financial system.

    And improve the way our markets function.

    Taken together, these reforms will help instill greater trust and confidence in our financial sector.

    This has obvious benefits for consumers, but also for you – the industry – more generally.

    How, you might ask?

    Well, it will encourage more people to invest in your products.

    It will make financial markets more accessible to a wider audience.

    And ultimately, increase demand for the services you provide.

    How the FCA will be different

    Under the FCA, the regulation of market conduct will be very different.

    To start with, this new body will be the first to have a single focus on the conduct of business.

    It’s also the case that we want the FCA to play a far stronger role promoting competition than its FSA predecessor.

    Regulation in itself is not enough to promote good consumer outcomes – we need to see competition between providers and choice between products.

    That’s why we’re making it one of the FCA’s formal duties to promote competition more broadly.

    Because I believe that competition is a powerful tool to deliver better outcomes for the consumer.

    It enables consumers to shop around, get a better deal, and have confidence in the products they’re buying into.

    So consumers need the right kind of information to enable them to shop around, we need to make it easier to them to switch between products and to compare their respective features.

    This can only be a good thing for the financial sector as a whole.

    Under the FCA, there will also be important changes in the approach to conduct regulation.

    In the past, the onus of conduct regulation has always been on the point of sale.

    Under the FCA this will still remain important, but the new regulator will complement this traditional focus on sales, marketing and disclosure, with an approach that tackles the issue from a different angle…

    …with a greater focus on products themselves.

    This will allow the FCA to take greater account of the products people are buying into.

    Their volatility.

    Their returns.

    And the risks involved.

    It will mean that the FCA will look at how financial products are evolving.

    And take action if it feels that consumers are suffering, or there’s a risk that they may suffer in the future.

    For this reason we want to give the FCA the power to ban products where it spots a serious problem.

    Now I understand that certain quarters may feel apprehensive about this development.

    So I’d like to reassure you that we recognise the importance of striking the right balance between protecting consumers… and providing certainty for the financial sector.

    Which is why we’ve tasked the FCA with consulting on a set of principles that must be met before such action is taken.

    This way, we’ll know where we stand.

    What we can expect from this new regulator.

    But also what’s expected from the industry.

    And this way, consumers will have a greater confidence in the products that are on offer, and be able to participate more freely in financial markets.

    Transparency

    Openness and transparency will be at the heart of the FCA’s work.

    We expect the FCA to have a regulatory culture based on a presumption of transparency

    …so that it makes greater use of its powers to make disclosures itself or require disclosures by firms, whilst respecting the appropriate treatment of confidential information.

    To further strengthen this we’re introducing two new powers in relation to transparency and disclosure.

    The first of these powers will enable warning notices to published.

    I know that some people may think differently, but allowing consumers to know if enforcement action is underway is incredibly important.

    If the firm in question is going through the enforcement process – but continues to carry out that activity – then surely it’s our responsibility to flag this up to its customers and to others who may have an interest in what the firm is doing.

    I understand that some of you have concerns about this new power… but there’s in some instances the issue has been exaggerated… and I’d like to address some of these misconceptions.

    First of all, I’ve seen that some people believe that the FCA will publish the details of every warning notice it issues.

    I can assure you that this isn’t the case.

    Yes, the FCA will be free to publicise the existence of a warning notice where it sees fit.

    But let me be clear, this is a power, not a duty.

    So if disclosure is not in the interests of the consumer…

    …causes reputational damage disproportionate to the matter at hand…

    …or undermines the regulator’s position…

    …then the FCA will be able to use its own discretion when deciding if disclosure is really in the public interest.

    The second rumour I’d like to dispel is that the subject of a warning notice will have no say in events as they unfold.

    Let me be clear, before giving any details to the general public, the regulator will notify the firm of its intentions.

    At no point in this process will the firm be left in the dark… or feel that their views have not been taken into account.

    And the final story I’d like to quash is that the FCA will never make an admission if enforcement action comes to a halt.

    In fact, the opposite is the case.

    If the regulator decides to stop an investigation, it will issue a ‘notice of discontinuance’…

    …this will ensure that the FCA, like the industry, will also be publically accountable for their actions.

    And this gives industry and the public an opportunity to assess the regulator’s success in taking enforcement action.

    I will say more on the subject of accountability in a moment…

    …but let me first set out briefly why we are also taking a new transparency power in relation to financial promotions, as greater transparency will be central to the work of the FCA.

    This is why the second power of disclosure we’re consulting on relates to misleading financial advertising.

    Confusing or ambiguous adverts are a key source of detriment for retail consumers.

    Where at times products are being sold based upon inaccurate descriptions of the costs involved, the returns you’ll get, or the risks you’ll be undertaking as a consumer.

    But current powers mean that – more often than not – the regulator is unable to publish details of the action it takes to deal with misleading financial promotions.

    So, as part of our consultation, we’re proposing that the FCA should be able to publish all the details relating to the withdrawal of misleading advertisements.

    This will increase confidence in the regulator’s ability to protect consumers.

    Make the actions of the regulator more understandable to consumers and to the industry as a whole.

    And engender better practice across financial markets, by making firms’ misconduct more visible to the general public.

    Accountability

    But these reforms are not just about new powers for the regulator, and greater transparency requirements on firms.

    The Government will ensure that the regulator will be accountable to those it regulates…

    …through requirements to consult and carry out cost benefit analysis

    …through statutory panels, including a new markets panel

    …and through the principles of regulation on openness and transparency which set out how we can expect the regulator to behave.

    And we want to go further and see greater accountability and transparency where things go wrong

    We will therefore legislate for the FCA to be required to make a report to the Treasury where there has been significant regulatory failure…

    …and for this report to be laid before Parliament so industry and consumers can see what went wrong and why.

    FOS and the FCA

    We are also planning to reinforce the distinction between the roles of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service, to give firms greater clarity and certainty.

    We need to strike the right balance between the role of the regulator in preventing or intervening early in issues which may have a wider impact…

    …and the role of FOS in resolving individual disputes between consumers and firms.

    So we will strengthen and formalise the cooperation and coordination mechanisms between the FOS and FCA through a statutory requirement to produce an MOU.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion, it is true that the FCA will be more interventionist than the regulatory authorities of the past.

    And the Government makes no apologies for that fact.

    Having a strong and focussed conduct of business regulator will be an asset to our economy – and to the financial sector itself.

    It will help instil a sense of trust in the services you provide.

    It will preserve our country’s reputation as the world’s leading financial centre.

    And it will create new opportunities for you, the industry, by giving everyone, regardless of their financial acumen, the confidence to invest in the products you supply.

    I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.

    Your ideas for how the FCA should operate.

    And your thoughts on how we’re progressing.

    So that together we can build a stronger financial sector.

    One that helps drive the economic recovery; meets the needs of business; and works to deliver the right outcomes for its customers.

    Thank you.

  • Mark Hoban – 2011 Speech at Scottish Financial Enterprise Event

    Mark Hoban – 2011 Speech at Scottish Financial Enterprise Event

    The speech made by Mark Hoban, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 3 March 2011.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today with Scottish Financial Enterprise.

    With almost one in ten jobs in Scotland based in financial services… you already represent a significant part of this nation’s economy.

    And having grown by over a third in the last 5 years, I don’t envisage your importance diminishing…

    …Quite the opposite in fact.

    A strong Scottish financial sector will underpin a prosperous and successful Scottish economy.

    Not just as a source of prosperity in your own right, but also because it’s your industry that helps make an entrepreneur’s vision become a reality.

    Your industry that provides the finance needed for investment and enterprise.

    And it’s your industry that will prove vital in supporting growth and securing the economic recovery.

    Today, however, I would like to talk about the Government’s plans for the economy.

    The important role that the financial services sector has to play.

    And how this fits in with our approach to financial regulation.

    As the Minister responsible for financial services, I’m well aware of the issues you’re currently facing.

    That businesses in Scotland have suffered in recent years.

    Where on the one hand, you hear Government calling for greater private investment.

    But on the other, the impact of the financial crisis has led to a general re-pricing of risk… and that investment opportunities are not as clear cut as they used to be.

    From a policy-making perspective, this is perhaps one of our greatest challenges.

    Because investment and growth are one of the same.

    They’re mutually reinforcing.

    To the extent that you struggle to have one without the other.

    And this is a dilemma that any Government faces in the wake of a downturn.

    Where growth has taken a hit, confidence has suffered, and investment prospects are more difficult to forecast… what’s the solution?

    Economic strategy

    Well this Government’s answer has been to set out a clear and credible plan for growth.

    After a period of turmoil, what investors need is some certainty.

    And that’s what we’ve provided.

    We’ve made it clear that tackling the deficit is our chief priority.

    Because allowing uncertainty surrounding the public finances to continue will undermine confidence.

    It would risk spiralling interest rates, rising inflation and higher taxes in the future to compensate for wasteful expenditure today.

    So yes, we’ve had to make difficult judgements about how we spend our money. But the alternative – to do nothing – would have damaged the economy for years to come.

    That’s why we will eliminate the structural current deficit over the next four years.

    Return debt to a falling path over the same period.

    And place our public finances on a stable footing.

    With the emphasis firmly on cuts to public expenditure… as opposed to tax rises for individuals and businesses.

    Last year’s Spending Review saw us take a big step towards delivering this promise – and it’s a promise we fully intend to keep.

    Government investment

    But let’s be clear.

    Returning our public finances to a stable footing is not enough.

    There’s also an important role for Government in supporting the private sector… by creating a stable and competitive tax system.

    In our first Budget, we announced our plan to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20.

    We said we’d look at the problems that had plagued the system in the past.

    And listen to businesses ideas for reform.

    What became apparent was that two things had to change.

    First, that our headline rates were putting us at a competitive disadvantage.

    That over the past decade, governments across the world had been cutting corporation tax, while we had stagnated.

    And if we want growth… if we want to attract business from across the world… then this is a situation that has to be rectified.

    That’s why we’ve chosen to cut corporation tax by 1% this year…and in each of the next three years.

    So that by 2014, we’ll have a headline rate of just 24%.

    This will be the lowest rate of any major Western economy, one of the most competitive in the G20, and the lowest this country has ever seen.

    The second concern that businesses voiced was the growing uncertainty that had been symptomatic of our predecessors’ approach to tax policy.

    With the introduction of two fiscal events for every financial year.

    Each one jam-packed with tax amendments.

    All of which were made under the veneer of consultation.

    While in reality, businesses often had little or no say in the tinkering of tax policy, let alone the frequency of these changes.

    So we’ve adopted a very different approach.

    Putting greater stability and predictability at the very heart of our tax system.

    And seeking to give businesses the certainty and confidence needed to make long-term investment decisions.

    This is something we demonstrated last year… having published our Corporate Tax Road Map – setting out our long-term plans for CT reform.

    This is all part of our new approach to tax policy making.

    One that is more collaborative, more open, and more transparent.

    Because competitiveness is not just about having lower rates… it’s also about the way you tax; how you make tax changes; and the costs of compliance.

    SME access to finance

    But on the path to sustainable growth, access to finance remains an obstacle.

    And the reasons are clear for all to see.

    Financial institutions have retrenched; weathered the financial storm; and looked to rebuild their balance sheets.

    Credit has become harder to come by; investment has suffered; and the flow of cheap money has all but dried up.

    Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are finding it difficult to secure affordable funding.

    And if we want a private sector recovery, this is something we have to address.

    In Scotland, SMEs represent almost 99% of all businesses.

    They’re easily the nation’s largest employer.

    And ultimately, it’s their success that defines growth in the economy.

    So we’ve been looking at how to create the right incentives to promote responsible and sustainable lending…

    …not just to help the small businesses we have today, but to also to invest in the industries of tomorrow.

    Whether it’s green technologies, advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, engineering or whatever the future may hold, it will be largely built on the back of private finance.

    In our July Green Paper – Financing a Private Sector Recovery – we assessed the availability of business finance in a recovering economy, in particular for creditworthy SMEs.

    And as part of our response to this paper, we’ve announced a series of measures to increase the flow of resources, such as:

    The £2.5bn bank-led Business Growth Fund – to provide equity investment to established and growing businesses.
    Continued support for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee – to enable over £2bn of lending to small business.

    £200m of additional funding for the Enterprise Capital Funds…

    … And just a few weeks ago, we reached an agreement with our largest banks to lend at least £76 billion this year – £10bn more than last year – to help growing small businesses.

    But it’s also apparent that many businesses still feel shut out of the equity financing market.

    That they’ve become over-reliant on bank lending as their primary source of external finance, when other types of funding would better suit their needs.

    This is something we’re keen to address.

    Because… with over 70% of the European equity market… and a vast array of specialist services and expertise… there’s a real opportunity to do more.

    And as one of Europe’s largest financial centres, we have stay vigilant when it comes to the Commission’s busy regulatory agenda.

    Domestic regulatory agenda

    And we have been busy on the domestic regulatory front too.

    During the financial crisis the regulatory foundations laid by the previous administration were tried, and found to be sorely wanting.

    As the pressure began to mount, cracks rapidly spread, exposing the structural flaws in the regulatory architecture.

    And it was the taxpayer who was forced to intervene, to prop up the financial system, and prevent it from total collapse.

    This is a situation we simply can’t afford to repeat.

    So we’re putting in place a new regulatory architecture – one that will ensure all regulation of the financial system is effectively targeted.

    We’ve started by doing away with the failed tripartite system – where responsibility for the financial system was diluted across the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority, and the Treasury.

    It was a model that contained a number of inherent weaknesses.

    First, it placed responsibility for all financial regulation in the hands of a single regulator – the FSA. Its dual mandate: supervising the safety and soundness of firms while regulating the relationship between companies and their customers.

    With so many objectives, this led to a loss focus.

    And second, the tripartite regime gave the Bank of England partial responsibility for financial stability, but it lacked the tools to do tackle the problems it identified.

    In essence, there was a lack of clear focus and responsibility.

    But regulatory structure was only one part of the problem.

    Too much emphasis was placed on ticking the right boxes and filling in the right forms, as opposed to actual analysis of risk.

    Most worryingly, the old system prevented the regulatory authorities from exercising their own judgement – their hands we’re tied in bureaucratic knots.

    So we’re condemning this arbitrary approach the history books…

    …and taking forward reforms that will give supervisors more discretion to use their own judgement, their own expertise.

    As when tackling the challenges posed by individual firms and particular products, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work for such a diverse and complex sector.

    As a first step, we are creating a single, dedicated, macro-prudential regulator.

    … to ensure that any risks developing across the financial system are identified and dealt with.

    This new body is the Financial Policy Committee – who, as part of the Bank of England, will have chief responsibility for maintaining financial stability and addressing systemic risk.

    The interim FPC has now been appointed and will meet for the first time in the very near future.

    And at a more micro level, we’re setting up the Prudential Regulation Authority – as an operationally independent subsidiary of the Bank – with responsibility for prudential regulation of deposit takers and insurers.

    By bringing together both micro and macro-prudential regulation under one roof, we will improve the coordination and coherence of financial supervision.

    But that’s not the end of the story.

    Far from it in fact.

    If we’re to improve sustainability and resilience of the financial system, it’s vital that we safeguard the interests of savers, investors, and borrowers.

    If customers have confidence in regulation, then they are more likely to invest, save and plan for the future.

    So alongside a more secure regulatory base, we need a financial sector that works for everyone – that earns our confidence, competes for our services, and keeps us properly informed.

    Which is why we’re setting up the new Financial Conduct Authority.

    This new body will monitor the behaviour of all financial institutions – from the smallest retail credit union, to the very largest investment bank.

    Whether in the retail, wholesale, or markets sphere – this new regulator’s actions will be guided by a single ambition: to protect and enhance confidence in the UK’s financial system.

    Which in turn will encourage more people to invest in your products.

    Make financial markets more accessible to a wider audience.

    And ultimately, increase demand for the services you provide.

    Conclusion

    So to finish I’d like to reiterate that few governments have faced challenges like those seen today.

    But we’ve risen to these challenges by providing a more stable tax system, to mitigate uncertainty.

    Increased access to finance, to support the recovery.

    Reformed our financial architecture, to promote stability and confidence.

    And, most importantly of all, delivered macroeconomic stability, to help you plan for the future.

    But now I’d be keen to hear your ideas for supporting growth in Scotland.

    Your thoughts on what more needs to be done.

    And your plans for the future.

    Thank you.