Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and Melanie Onn
Tuesday 25th October 2016

(7 years, 6 months ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Eilidh Whiteford Portrait Dr Whiteford
- Hansard - -

Q Thanks, that is a helpful clarification. I also wanted to come back to something you said earlier about self-employed people. We took evidence earlier today that around two thirds of self-employed people would not actually qualify for a lifetime ISA. I just wondered whether Scottish Friendly had done alternative modelling or had an alternative assessment of the market.

Calum Bennie: No, we have not.

Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Q I will follow up along the lines of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asked. Earlier we heard evidence from the Tax Incentivised Savings Association and the Association of British Insurers and their view was very much that a LISA would be complementary to a pension, not in isolation from a pension. Can you clarify your view that people may not actually have a pension and may exclusively go for a LISA? Do you think that will be a secure route for them, in terms of planning for their long-term older age?

Calum Bennie: In essence, yes. The whole traditional world of retirement is changing and a range of products for people to put money aside for their later years makes total sense. We have done research. With the many customers we have who are saving in ISAs and in other savings plans, when we do the research to find out what they are saving for—financial services companies traditionally market for the holiday of a lifetime, a car, or a home improvement and things like that—our research shows that people are actually saving for retirement. They may have a pension, but they are also saving independently in an investment plan. You cannot just force people to save for their later years in pensions; they are saving in all sorts of vehicles for their later years.

Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and Melanie Onn
Tuesday 11th October 2016

(7 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present this petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of Great Grimsby in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South.

The Petition of residents of the UK.

[P001751]

Eilidh Whiteford Portrait Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
- Hansard -

I rise to present these stylishly presented petitions on behalf of residents of the Banff and Buchan constituency and the Gordon constituency in the same terms as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, with 568 and 123 signatories respectively.

The Petition of residents of Banff and Buchan.

[P001759]

The Petition of residents of Gordon.

[P001758]

Scotland Bill

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and Melanie Onn
Monday 9th November 2015

(8 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Eilidh Whiteford Portrait Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

I rise to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and I, and I am just sorry that we do not have more time to debate them more fully this evening. Like the Secretary of State, I have a sense of déjà vu, because many of the amendments tabled today are very similar to those we debated in Committee. So far, the Government have accepted only one Opposition amendment to the Bill, but we have at last seen Government amendments being tabled in the last few days that will take us a wee bit closer to what was originally pledged.

I welcome the Government’s tacit admission that the Bill as it stood failed to meet the letter or the spirit of the Smith recommendations. I welcome many of the belated amendments, including the lead new clause and the amendment on abortion that we debated earlier, because they address some of the Bill’s most obvious shortcomings. However, the SNP’s amendments in this group—there are more than quite a few of them—seek to equip the Scottish Parliament with the powers it needs to build a fairer society, strengthen employment prospects, improve governance and create a better future for our people.

No issue encapsulates why we need home rule better than that of tax credits. That is why we have tabled new clause 18, which would amend schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve to the Scottish Parliament the power to make provision for child tax credit and working tax credit—

Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---
Eilidh Whiteford Portrait Dr Whiteford
- Hansard - -

I will not give way at the moment as I want to make some progress, but I will come back to this and take more interventions.

The changes announced by the Chancellor have the power to cut the incomes of 4.5 million families across the UK. The SNP has been resolute and consistent in its opposition to those cuts. I wish the same could be said of other parties in this House.

Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Lady for her sorority in giving way. The Scottish Government have accepted that the Bill gives them the power to restore the money lost from the Tories’ tax credit cuts. Will she commit the Scottish Government to restoring in full the money lost from tax credit cuts?

Eilidh Whiteford Portrait Dr Whiteford
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady really needs to stop reading her briefing sheet and listen to the debate. It is simply wrong to ask those in the lowest paid jobs, bringing up their children on very tight budgets, to pay the lion’s share of the price for the economic failures of successive UK Governments.

As the UK Government’s tax credit proposals stand, 250,000 working households in Scotland will lose on average £1,500 a year each from April. In the longer term, once all the tax credit changes have been fully implemented—including the restrictions under the two-child policy—many of those families will lose up to £3,000 a year each. That is not pocket money: it represents an enormous proportion of household income and will cause real deprivation and hardship.