The Treasury gets £200m for Christmas

Let's hope it doesn't spend it all in one place.

The Treasury is set to receive a spectacular belated Christmas present this year: over £200m in banking fines. Under new regulation introduced last October, the money raised from punishing banks’ misdemeanours, of which there were many in 2012, will not go to the FSA, but to the Treasury. Hopefully, this move will not encourage the government to hand out fines indiscriminately solely for the purpose of boosting its balance sheet.

At present, the debris-strewn financial landscape of 2012 is set to benefit the Treasury to the tune of £312m. But before the end of the financial year in April, this figure is likely to be much higher, with RBS expected to settle over Libor by paying a fine of about £350m.

What is the government going to do with this money, which comes on top of the annual banking levy of £2.5bn? So far, it has promised to hand £35m to armed forces charities; once the FSA’s investigation fees are deducted, around £172m will be left. After it receives its chunk of RBS’s fine, the final figure for the Treasury will far exceed £200m.

Financial iniquity, it would seem, now means profit for the government. At the end of last year, I argued that fines are not an effective way in which to punish banks and bankers for immorality or incompetence. The danger of handing the money they raise to the Treasury rather than an independent regulator is that the government might be less inclined to look at other ways of addressing the City’s misdemeanours.

This article first appeared in Spear's magazine.

The money has been raised from punishing banks’ misdemeanours. Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.