Britain needs a state investment bank

November 14, 2012 1:49 pm

Nick Tott was right when he said in a report for the Labour Party earlier this year that there is a strong case for a British Investment Bank (BIB). Its remit should be to tackle two long-standing problems faced by the British economy: a tendency to invest less in infrastructure than comparable countries and a shortage of financing, particularly long-term financing, for small and medium-sized businesses.

There should be no doubt that these problems are real ones. Measures of international competitiveness, such as those compiled by the World Economic Forum, consistently show the UK’s infrastructure is one of its weak points. And the difficulties small businesses face when trying to get finance was highlighted as long ago as the 1930s (in the Macmillan Report). Their persistence also suggests that new ideas are needed to solve them. A BIB would represent one such new approach.

Vince Cable is setting up a ‘British Business Bank’, but this is only a down-payment towards a real British Investment Bank. It will have a one-off capital injection of £1 billion, which might at the most lead to an additional lending of £10 billion to small and medium-sized businesses. This is small beer in an economy of £1.5 trillion.  Given the fiscal constraints imposed by the Chancellor, the Business Secretary probably feels he has done well to get even £1 billion of funding. But this represents a missed opportunity. In an IPPR report published earlier this year, my former colleague David Nash and I argue that a state bank should be much more ambitious in scope.

We suggested the Bank should have an initial capital injection of £40 billion, spread over four years. (£10 billion a year is a little less than the amount the Coalition has cut public capital expenditure by in the current spending round.) If, like the Nordic Investment Bank and the European Investment Bank, the BIB was allowed to raise £2.50 on the financial markets – largely by issuing bonds – for every £1 of capital, it would have a balance sheet of £140 billion after four years.

This should be enough to make a difference to the UK economy. £140 billion is around 9% of UK GDP – and roughly one-third the size of the European Investment Bank’s balance sheet. Depending on the demand for funds, more might be needed eventually, but this would represent a good start.

The BIB should be 100% state-owned. It would be profit-making – though not necessarily profit-maximising – but it would not pay a dividend. Profits would be ploughed back into the Bank to allow it to further increase its lending.

The governance structure of the BIB should establish a clear dividing line between the role of government and the activities of bankers. Government ministers would approve the annual accounts, assess the performance of the BIB against its broad objectives of increasing lending for infrastructure projects and to SMEs and discuss any changes to its high-level mandate. It might also choose to require that a proportion of lending is directed, for example, to further the UK’s move to a low-carbon economy. Banking decisions – which projects to lend to and which not – would be the preserve of bankers.

The BIB would need to secure EU state aid approval. While this would not be easy, those who argue there is no point in even developing the idea of a BIB because it would be shot down by Brussels are wrong. The state aid rules are not written in stone. They are designed to prevent governments giving companies in their countries an unfair advantage, not to be a barrier to growth – or to an institution that would support growth.

Some have argued the case for a British Investment Bank to help the economy escape its current weak state; they misunderstand the role a BIB could play in the UK. The need for such an institution will not go away, even in the unlikely event of a vigorous economic recovery; it is required to tackle long-standing problems. Labour needs to be thinking now about how to promote growth in the medium-term through structural change in the economy. A fully-fledged British Investment Bank should be part of its package.

Tony Dolphin is Chief Economist at IPPR

This piece forms part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

Latest

  • Comment Fairness dictates that we show concern for both sides

    Fairness dictates that we show concern for both sides

    We have all been shocked to see the surge in violence between Israel and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. This conflict is causing enormous hardship on both sides. Particularly distressing is the sight of civilian casualties. The scale of human suffering in the current escalation is immense and every civilian casualty is a tragedy. The people of Gaza have the right to live in peace and freedom, just as Israelis have the right not to fear for […]

    Read more →
  • News Are Osborne’s spinners block journalists from asking questions they don’t like?

    Are Osborne’s spinners block journalists from asking questions they don’t like?

    An intriguing story emerged from a copy of the Express and Star last week, the regional newspaper that covers the West Midlands and Staffordshire. Daniel Wainwright reports that during a recent visit from the Chancellor, a radio journalist said she wanted to ask George Osborne about food banks, and was told that he simply wouldn’t answer it. Here’s the story: “Talking of George Osborne, here’s a little insight into what goes on in the run up to getting an interview. These […]

    Read more →
  • News Alexander intervenes on Gaza escalation that “shames our shared humanity”

    Alexander intervenes on Gaza escalation that “shames our shared humanity”

    Douglas Alexander, Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary, has made another intervention on the Gaza conflict as the crisis in the Middle East continues to escalate. Alexander condemns the attack on a UN school in Gaza, describing the deaths of children there as “[shaming] our shared humanity”. His latest comments seem to be aimed largely at lobbying Israel to stand down the level of the force, and to recognise that as a democracy with “vastly superior technological and military capabilities, comes particular responsibilities”. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour changes track – and now it can win

    Labour changes track – and now it can win

    Labour has not generated many headlines this week. There haven’t been game-changers. David Cameron wasn’t trounced in Prime Minister’s Questions. The polls haven’t shifted. The meeting with a post-stardust Obama passed by without significant benefit or incident. Yet, this has been Labour’s best week for some considerable time – certainly in this Parliament. Heading into the final furlong of the election race, Labour has three strategic weaknesses: its perceived weaknesses on leadership, an absence of a strong governing story and a […]

    Read more →
  • News This is just one of the reasons why the Tories will never do well in the North East

    This is just one of the reasons why the Tories will never do well in the North East

    David Cameron has been on BBC Radio Tees – that’s the radio station for the Middlesbrough area, and the Tees is the name of the river there. Except this happened (via Buzzfeed): Presenter: “You keep mentioning the River Tyne. That’s not our region prime minister. I’m sorry, we are the River Tees.” Cameron: “I’m sorry, I thought I was doing….” Tyneside is of course around 50 miles North of Middlesbrough – it’s home to Newcastle, and Gateshead, and those of us who are […]

    Read more →