Annuities for Pensioners

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend has spent a lot of time working in the sector and knows the issues well. He is absolutely right to highlight the unintended consequence of the retail distribution review, which in a sense is to put people off the idea of buying up-front advice on a complex product such as an annuity. For those who have a relatively small pot of savings, such as £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000—a lot of money for some people—the idea of paying £400 or £500 for advice is not attractive. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that, because it is one of the issues.

I drew attention to the perfect customer for an annuity; let me now give the other side of the coin. By contrast is the customer who is told by the provider of their direct contribution pension—his or her only modest source of savings—that they need an annuity, has no idea what an annuity is and asks the pensions provider what they can offer; who has no idea whether that offer is good, bad or indifferent, goes for the cheaper of the options available, probably leaving out any cover for his or her partner and certainly any provision for inflation, and forgets to mention perhaps a hereditary heart weakness; and who moves from a suburb to the inner city to be closer to shops and a hospital, lives for a few years and then dies, having drawn only a small percentage of income from a capital sum that has now disappeared, leaving their wife, husband or partner on the state pension. For what purpose did he or she save?

With longevity the way it is, we might argue that such a customer scarcely exists, as we would all hope, but the reality is that some of his or her characteristics are a reality—as the Pensions Advisory Service has confirmed—especially in the understanding of what they are buying. Ros Altmann has estimated that insurers will often keep between half and three quarters of a pension fund they take over and convert it into an annuity.

I did a quick reality check on the word “annuity” in a Gloucester pub last weekend. Of the 22 people I asked, six said it was a financial thing like a pension, one of those said it gave income and most of the rest said they had no idea. I accept that it was a bad weekend for Gloucester rugby, and trying to discuss annuities in a pub was pushing my luck, but I do not believe that the people of Britain know what an annuity is or that the average response would be any different. Why is an annuity useful? Do people have to have one? The answer is no. How do they go about getting one? An annuity is potentially the second biggest financial purchase of our lives, so the current state of information about them is worrying.

In any market that size—£12 billion a year is big—if a customer feels that he or she has to buy something but does not really know what it is, the definition of good value is elusive. Customers need a lot of knowledge to pick the right product and the market is dominated by a handful of big names, so there is a danger of high charges, a lack of transparency and inadequate protection. The annuities market more than lives up to all those risks. I rang the Pensions Advisory Service yesterday to get some initial advice—just one man in his 50s ringing in to ask questions about annuities. I got good general advice on a whole number of issues, but when I asked about charges, I was told confidently, “You will never be able to work out what the charges are.” I asked the helpful adviser whether he thought that was right. “Not for me to say,” he replied, which was fair enough. However, it is right for hon. Members to raise and challenge the situation on behalf of our constituents, who ought to know what they are being charged for a product as important as an annuity.

Almost 20,000 of my constituents in Gloucester are between 50 and 64. For all of those people, some understanding of annuities would be useful. It is not good enough to have a product for which people will simply never know the charges. The situation for annuities sits oddly beside that for their stepbrother or sister, the pension. Huge efforts are being made to clarify, and make as simple as possible, all the costs and charges for pensions; to estimate a management fee that is neither rapacious nor drives investment managers to the lowest common denominator; and, above all, to make charges transparent to the client. The status quo is tantamount to an insurance firm—everyone is under the same roof, in the same organisation—saying, “Right, over here is a team of investment managers managing pensions: you need to be squeaky clean, work out all the costs and charges and report them completely. Your margins will be tight. Over here, in this corner, we have the annuities guys: your pricing is roughly what you want it to be, and there is no need to explain or declare anything.” That has to be wrong. When such efforts are being made to ensure transparency about money coming into a pension, it is especially strange that, at the moment, the system does so little for moneys coming out of a pension and into an annuity.

For today’s debate, we have the benefit of the detailed investigations by the Financial Conduct Authority’s consumer panel and The Daily Telegraph. The latter found that differences between annuities offered amounted to as much as £1,444 a year on a pot of £100,000. The FCA’s consumer panel found that commission charges vary by up to £1,000, which might, for the cynical, explain why the industry is so shy when it comes to explaining what the charges are.

The FCA found in general that the industry was “very dysfunctional”, with “possible exploitative pricing”—up to 6% of a customer’s pot could go in commission. In a rebuke to any of us who thought that the answer might simply be to provide more information, the consumer panel found that customers are put off by the mountain of jargon and “information overload”. Frankly, I am irresistibly reminded of the endowment mortgage I was obliged to buy in the 1980s: however it was explained, it was absolute gobbledegook, and there were high commissions, often from one insurer to another. The consumer panel found that 3.5% commission for an introduction from Zurich to Legal & General seemed to be the going rate for annuities today. In the 1980s, if someone wanted to buy a house, they had to have an endowment mortgage. Later on, of course, the fabulous projected investment returns did not materialise, the mis-selling was investigated, fines were levied, the product was binned and the financial sector moved on. Will we see a repeat of that?

I chaired a seminar recently on annuities and asked the Association of British Insurers whether there was a danger of any of its members being sued for mis-selling. There was a long pause before the answer came: “Not yet.” It is therefore not surprising that the FCA consumer panel has recommended urgent regulatory and Government-led reforms to protect and benefit millions of our constituents.

I will turn now to what changes have already been made, and then move on to what could or perhaps should be done next. I start by recognising what the Government have already done. Some of the changes made by the Treasury should have been made a decade ago. For example, it has removed the default retirement age and the effective requirement to purchase an annuity by the age of 75. That is a vital change: it means people no longer have to buy an annuity, and, if they do not, they can take 25% of their savings tax-free and draw an income from the rest. That is a serious option for many people. The starting point of a debate on annuities for every individual should always be whether an annuity will be useful and helpful to them, and what the alternatives are.

There have also been changes to the capped draw-down rules—more jargon, I am afraid, but those rules have been reformed, and that matters within the sector. The Treasury has also encouraged the ABI’s new code of conduct for retirement choices, which has come into play and has made modest steps forward on explanations and general advice, but I do not believe that that is enough. At the same time, the Department for Work and Pensions has promoted open market options and obliged DC schemes to provide what it calls a “wake-up pack” of information, pre-retirement.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. On that point, when people previously received their packs on coming up to retirement, there was every chance that there would have been a standard form in the pack from a chosen insurer detailing a chosen product. That has now gone, and people are given a form listing their options and saying where they need to go for each. That is a great step forward.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is knowledgeable and absolutely right to highlight that all ways of giving people more options and widening the market to give them choice must be steps in the right direction.

The changes that the Treasury has made do not in themselves answer the nub of the issue, as highlighted so well by the FCA consumer panel. The uncomfortable truth remains that very few people understand annuities or make the informed choices that increased choice should enable them to make. They do not understand what they are buying or whether it is the right product for them, and they have no idea what charges are being levied and whether they are appropriate. As the consumer panel concluded, much more needs to be done. The fundamental issues that I flagged up at the beginning of the debate remain unresolved. An annuity is still something that is bought once and that lasts for ever; however, the circumstances of the buyer might change.

I will finish by touching on some of the issues that could and should be addressed. I do not want to make too much of the structure of the market, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s views. In a way, an annuity is an offshoot of the pensions sector—it is what happens after a pension—but because it is provided by the insurance sector, it is regulated by regulators that are ultimately responsible to the Treasury. The Pensions Advisory Service is DWP funded; the Money Advice Service is separately funded, and the appointments of its chairman and chief executive are approved by the Treasury, but it is answerable for its strategy to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. There is therefore a sense of different advice being offered by different agencies that are responsible to different Departments. That situation does not seem wholly satisfactory to me. It is interesting that the Opposition have today chosen to put up their pensions spokesman rather than someone from their Treasury team.

There is the structural issue of how annuities are regulated and whether the gap between increasing regulation on the pension side, especially in the context of defined contributions and auto-enrolment, could be mirrored by more regulation on the annuities side. I hope that the DWP’s consultation on charges will also shed light on the charges on annuities. Perhaps the Treasury will be able to absorb that when the FCA investigation gets under way.

The broader issues remain, and the nub of the problem is that annuities are unchangeable and inflexible. It is well worth considering the suggestion floated in The Sunday Telegraph by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—that annuities might be changeable when circumstances change, so that they become more like mortgages that may be fixed for a period and thereafter traded or renewed.

A couple of hon. Members have highlighted advice. There is a strong case for believing that annuity brokers are not adding value for customers and that hidden commission should be revealed and consideration given to whether it is appropriate. More specific advice should be offered. When someone rings the Pensions Advisory Service to talk about annuities, they are told straight away that the service cannot discuss an individual’s specific circumstances and cannot access information about their pension or anything else. The advice, although good, is generic, but specific advice about people’s individual situations is most needed and least available.

[Heather Wheeler]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend called today’s debate because I have received a letter from a constituent, Mr Tejpal Singh of Stenson Fields, who asked me to ensure that the House had a debate on annuities, so a new year resolution has been kept. Mr Singh’s point was that people were given specific advice to save and were given to understand that when they took out an annuity at a specific age, the return would be £10,000 or £7,500 a year, but they are lucky to get £4,000 or even £3,000 now. That is difficult for people who have done the right thing on this important cost-of-living issue, but then the market has collapsed. I wonder whether the advice that my hon. Friend is referring to could help with that.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

Air Passenger Duty

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I take on board the hon. Lady’s point.

As well as compromising trade, the cost of APD is felt by the aviation and tourism sector across the country. Last year, more than 30 million visitors came to Britain and spent £18 billion in our economy. We all want to see that number increase, and I want to see more foreign tourists flying to our international airports and travelling to see attractions elsewhere in the country—including the county of Essex, where the tourist sector supports 54,000 jobs and adds £3 billion to our local economy.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She talks about Essex with passion, which is fantastic. In South Derbyshire we are equidistant from East Midlands airport and Birmingham airport and we have a huge amount of tourism, as well as many jobs based in the airport industry. I hope that Ministers listen to my hon. Friend and think again about a tax that is holding back growth.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments.

We would all like to see travellers from Brazil, Russia, India, China and a range of emerging markets choose to spend their dollars, rupees and other currencies here, but the current rates of APD are deterring inbound tourism, especially from developing countries with a growing middle class. Why would a family of four from China wishing to take a holiday in Europe come to Britain where APD would add a further £324 to their travel costs when they could hop on a flight to France and pay aviation taxes totalling £36 or to Germany where they would also pay less? The Government’s tourism strategy clearly warns that we are pricing ourselves out of the mass or middle market and will swiftly relegate Britain from being the sixth most popular destination in the world to the margins of the industry. The aviation sector supports more than 900,000 jobs and contributes more than £50 billion to GDP. I urge the Government to consider how APD can be reformed to support tourism as well as business.

In 1994, modest levels of £5 for short-haul travel in the EU and £10 for destinations beyond the EU were introduced. APD is now having a negative impact on our economy. When the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), announced the introduction of APD in November 1993, he said it was a small duty on all air passengers from United Kingdom airports. The predicted revenue was £330 million a year. It now raises 10 times more than that, and a family of four travelling economy class to Florida this winter will pay £260 in APD.

Beer Duty Escalator

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.

We need to understand that the beer and pubs industry employs 1 million people across the country, 50% of whom are under the age of 25. We have a problem with youth unemployment, so surely supporting such a dynamic industry is the right thing to do.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my neighbour on introducing the debate. We rely greatly on jobs in the industry in South Derbyshire and Burton. We have some fantastic local brewers such as Tollgate Brewery in Shardlow, John Thompson in Ingleby and of course the Burton Bridge Brewery, which has opened its fantastic pub, the Brickmaker’s Arms, in Newton Solney. They all create jobs, and we are asking Treasury Ministers to understand the cost-benefit analysis and bring the price down.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend; nobody does more to support the brewing industry than she. I am astounded at the level of understanding shown by right hon. and hon. Members. Clearly Parliament gets it, and our job today is to ensure that the Treasury gets it, and that it scraps the tax and does more to support Britain’s beer and pubs industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandra Osborne]

I am not really surprised: I am well aware of it, and I was going to make a similar comment. I know that this will be of concern to many Members.

In their first Budget after the 2010 general election, as hon. Members will be aware, the coalition Government launched a review of the taxing and pricing of alcohol, including the beer duty escalator, which was first introduced by the former Labour Government in 2008. The coalition’s aim was to ensure that it

“tackled binge drinking without unfairly penalising responsible drinkers, pubs and important local industries.”

If the views expressed so far are anything to go by, we would all agree that that is simply not working. I am aware that the Government have stated that they intend to keep the escalator in place until 2014-15, although Treasury forecasts have shown that no additional revenue will be generated from beer duty, despite the increases of 2% above inflation planned in forthcoming Budgets over the next two years. The Government are not even going to make any money out of it. The planned 2% rise above inflation, equating to a 5% price increase, came into effect from 1 April 2012.

The Campaign for Real Ale, which has 450 members in my constituency alone, and the British Beer and Pub Association have criticised the decision not to abolish the escalator in the Budget, claiming that the increase could cost thousands of jobs. CAMRA has also expressed concern about the impact of the escalator on the industry, stating that a third of the cost of a pint of beer goes to the Exchequer—as was said earlier, that is the second highest rate of duty in the EU—while 16 pubs now close in the UK every week. The Government need to recognise the harm this is doing to brewers as well as to community pubs.

Since the escalator was first introduced, beer sales in pubs and clubs have fallen by 23%, leading to more than 6,000 pubs closing. Since that time, so much has changed: inflation has risen, VAT has increased, brewing costs have risen and household incomes have fallen. According to the Beer and Pub Association, beer taxation now costs the average pub around £66,000 a year. As other Members have stated, this is having a terrible impact on towns already suffering from the current economic situation, as more people are purchasing alcohol from supermarkets, which is competitively priced, to drink within their homes rather than having a social drink in their local pub. I am aware that the most common complaint received by the local licensing department in my constituency is about the threat posed to the local pub trade by the volume of cheap sales of alcohol by supermarkets.

Given that beer and pubs support almost a million jobs in the UK and that 48% of pub employees are under 25, the Beer and Pub Association has stated that if the escalator is removed, the industry has a real capacity to create jobs, raise more for the Exchequer and contribute to growth.

[Heather Wheeler]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s point about how many jobs are created by our pubs. The 115 pubs in South Derbyshire employ 1,040 people. It is a hugely important industry for us locally. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the point that this is about jobs, industry and growth. I am sure that Ministers will be listening intently to that.

[Sandra Osborne]

I thank the hon. Lady. Another problem is that when many of the small pubs that employ only a few people close, that is not highlighted. With bigger announcements about redundancies, it is always made clear that huge job losses are involved, but I would argue that this is just as insidious for those working in the smaller pubs.

I recognise concerns about alcohol-related harm and the serious problems that alcohol causes, of which we are very aware in Scotland. I recognise, too, that campaigners have called for some time for the Government to introduce a duty rate escalator on alcoholic drinks as part of a wider strategy to tackle the social impact of alcohol consumption.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on introducing the Bill, but unfortunately I shall speak against it. My first 10 years in business were in the City, but living for the past 25 years up in South Derbyshire far away from City issues has given me an ability to reflect on other things—I now deal with everyday issues such as potholes, farming, milk prices and goodness knows what else in South Derbyshire. The debate is somewhat esoteric: funnily enough, they are not talking about it at great length at The Dog and Duck in Shardlow—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and his hon. Friends are having a conversation about it, and perhaps about withdrawing the Bill. If they withdraw it now, we could all go home.

That the Bill has any legs at all is frightening, because it changes the Select Committee role from one of scrutiny to one of appointment. I do not believe that that is what Select Committees are for. We should not go down the American route—there is a bun fight every time anybody tries to be elected to courts or other positions. That is demeaning, and I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman felt he needed to introduce the Bill. Select Committees confirming rather than vetoing appointments is a better way to enhance their authority, and perhaps we should have a conversation on that basis.

I should chuck into the mix the question of how the Treasury Committee came to its conclusion. I sit on two Select Committees, but I do not know what machinations took the Treasury Committee to that point. Perhaps a member of the Committee could tell the House how that came about. The proposal sounds a little bit like land grabbing, as if members of the Committee have said, “We’re terribly important and we know it, so we want one more power to show how important we are.” That could be true—my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), another member of the Committee, has arrived at the Bar of the House—but I am concerned that Select Committees sometimes overreach.

As all hon. Members know, Select Committee reports come to the Chamber—they are not accepted on the nod, but debated. The nonsense of the appointment role—this bun fight—could go on and on, which would be demeaning to Parliament.

The public are not talking about this issue, and it is a shame that we have got to this stage. I appreciate why we have private Members’ Bills—one day I hope to be lucky enough to come high in the ballot and to do something about wind farms—but we have an opportunity and a duty to talk about the really important things going on in the world. It is not appropriate to consider a land grab from certain Select Committees, and I shall oppose the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely; this argument is vital to the Bill. It is a question of whether the Governor’s appointment should be in the gift of the Government or should be capable of being vetoed by people who are not necessarily the Government’s appointees. I apologise if I did not make it clear why this is precisely and closely related to the Bill.

In considering the Bill’s impact, it is important to remember that the Governor is only one member of the Monetary Policy Committee and of the Financial Policy Committee. As we saw last month, the Governor voted in favour of quantitative easing a month before the Committee had a majority for it. In that light, it is slightly odd that the Bill considers only the Governor when the body that determines our monetary policy is the whole membership of the Monetary Policy Committee. There are nine members, five of whom are executives of the Bank of England and four are so-called external members. While the Treasury Committee has oversight of, and the ability to scrutinise, all the others, there is no proposal for the other eight Committee members or the other members of the Financial Policy Committee to be subject to a veto by the Treasury Committee. In that sense, those who support the arguments in this Bill—I do not—should support a veto over the appointment of the other members of the Committee.

The Bill makes it clear from line 20 onwards that the deputy governors are not subject to the oversight of the Treasury Committee. Given that the deputy governors have one vote each and the Governor has only one vote, too, although he does by convention vote last, the argument does not change with respect to the deputy governors and the Governor. There is thus a confusion at the heart of the Bill.

The proposed appointment process by the Treasury Committee ignores the measures in the Financial Services Bill, which I think removes the motivation for bringing this Bill forward now. The structure of the Bank of England will change from having an imperial Governor to having one who is the head of a committee—the Financial Policy Committee—on the financial stability side of the Bank.

The need for a common strategy between the Bank and the Government is more important now than it has been for a long time. The financial crisis laid bare the importance of co-ordinating monetary and fiscal policy. For a while, it was wrongly believed in this country that those two policies could be separate. Indeed, financial policy was separated again, so we had a tripartite system, with financial policy vested in the Financial Services Authority, monetary policy in the Bank of England and fiscal policy in the Treasury. It is not the case that they were separable. It is clear from how the world is having to manage the current difficult situation that these are not discrete entities, but aspects of one another.

The banks themselves are part of the transmission mechanism, too. I like to say that they stand in relation to the Monetary Policy Committee as the Higgs boson particle stands to matter: they give substance to the Committee’s decisions because they transmit interest rates and monetary policy into the real economy. Similarly, the level of debt in the economy is symbiotically connected to banking regulation because regulation of the leverage of banks has a direct impact on the amount of debt, and the removal of the regulation over leverage and the amount of debt in the economy was one of the main drivers of the over-leverage and vast expansion of the money supply that led to the grave difficulties we face in managing the current economy. That explains why it is so important for the broad strategy of the Government of the day to be supported by the Governor of the Bank of England.

What we do not want to see are more asset bubbles, and we might see those if we had a Governor who did not agree with the strategy of the day. Fiscal policy could work against monetary policy, rather than the two broadly working together both to deal with an over-indebted economy and to enable the decisive action that is necessary to stimulate the economy and prevent a banking crisis from turning into a slump. This is not, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, a matter that has no impact on our postbags. Although few people write to me about the appointment process of the Bank of England, an error in that process could have a profound impact on our economy, and would doubtless hit our postbags very hard.

[Heather Wheeler]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and he is, of course, absolutely right. That is the beauty of being able to make a speech lasting for three quarters of an hour that takes us from A to Z. It is very impressive. Members who prefer to make short speeches tend to allow the floor to others so that they can express all these other views at greater length.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I am slightly embarrassed by her eloquence. As she said in her speech, it matters to people that we get the management of the economy right. When it goes wrong, as it has in the past, that has a massive impact on our postbags. It is therefore right and proper for us who debate these issues in the House to devote a great deal of scrutiny to them.

The funding for lending scheme, which was announced last month, is a good example of how this works in practice. When interest rates are near zero, the connection between monetary and fiscal policy becomes even tighter. The ability to get low interest rates out into the real economy can depend on the use of the Government’s own balance sheet. The funding for lending scheme and the liquidity scheme, which I think is one of the most vital elements of our economic recovery, are a joint matter involving use of the Treasury’s balance sheet and the indemnity for the Bank of England, and Bank of England action in the markets, both between banks and in the context of the wider availability of debt. That is a clear indication of the requirement for not just operational independence, but a common strategy between the Governor of the Bank and the Government of the day.

Allowing banks to borrow from the Bank of England in order to lend directly into the real economy means having to ensure that the high rates paid by one bank to another because of the insecurity of, ultimately, their creditworthiness and the difficulty of accessing liquidity are not passed on to people who pay for mortgages or businesses that need to borrow to finance investment. Many businesses that have taken advantage of opportunities, and many mortgagees who have bought houses, are capable of repaying a loan directly at a decent interest rate that is worth while to them, but a margin is added because the banks cannot lend to each other at decent rates that are almost free of risk.

The involvement of the Government in liquidity is nothing new. It has not happened for about 15 years, but for several centuries before that, the Bank of England intervened in the provision of liquidity in the City through the discounted bill market. Liquidity was available to ordinary businesses, and indeed to people wanting to buy their homes, when it was supported by the Bank of England, normally as the “third name” on a bill, in order precisely to ensure that the monetary policy of the central Bank—whether independent or not—got into the real economy and did not end up stuck in the banking system, as happens too often today.

As the current Governor of the Bank of England said in his Mansion House speech,

“the long term nature of the lending and its pricing mean that the Bank could conduct such an operation only with the approval of the Government, as offered by the Chancellor…such a scheme would be a joint effort between Bank and Treasury.”

If, as set out in the Bill, the Treasury Committee could veto somebody who had a strategic agreement with the Government, and in their place ensure that only somebody who agreed with its strategy, and not the Government’s, went into the job, that would undermine this potential for joint working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely. If the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) wants to debate that point, he should include it in his own private Member’s Bill, if he is fortunate enough to introduce one. He should introduce a Bill, and then we might have a lengthy debate.

The specific proposal before us is not appropriate, however, and I shall say why. The historical examples, which have been too little regarded, are very important. We have to look at the development of Parliament, to understand its powers and to understand the evolution of the Bank of England and its unique role in the historical and current governance of political economy. We have to understand a range of things.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, we have to look also at international examples from recent history and throughout the world, and it is quite wrong for Opposition Members to try to curtail or to truncate debate. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not think it wrong for the House of Commons to debate things fully, and, on that basis, I turn to what Parliament does and what we are trying to do.

We scrutinise the Executive. Our job is not to make Executive appointments, to opine upon or to veto people appointed by the Crown; it is simply to scrutinise the Executive. The appointment of a Bank of England Governor is a matter for the Executive, and has been ever since the Bank’s nationalisation in 1946. One of the more interesting speeches today related to the origins of the Bank, because we have to understand where it has come from, and I repudiate any attempt to curtail Members’ right of speech when they are describing the history of the Bank. Everything is contingent: one has to understand the history of institutions to understand better how we can develop them.

The Bank of England was for almost 270 years an independent institution. It was a private bank, and its governor would spend two years in the role on a rotating basis. That broke down after the first world war, in 1920, when Montagu Norman was appointed Governor of the Bank of England. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested that the new Governor—this superman or superwoman—would have such enormous powers and influence that no Governor has ever equalled them. That is completely unhistorical and false. Montagu Norman was Governor of the Bank from 1920 to 1944. He was Governor in 1925 when we went back on the gold standard and in 1931 when we came off the gold standard. He was Governor in 1939, just before the second world war, when exchange controls were imposed. He only left, dragged kicking and screaming from his post, after 24 years. He was a man of enormous power and influence, and it is very unlikely that any subsequent Governor will exercise the same kind of power. The simple reason is that under the current proposals we suggest that a Governor should have a single term of eight years, so there is no question of a man or woman being Governor for the same length of time as Montagu Norman or, similarly, Kim Cobbold, who was Governor for 12 years.

Members who are trying to make the case for supervision are utterly exaggerating the nature of this man or woman’s power once he or she is appointed to this important role. That is obviously due to their desire to exaggerate the power of the Governor to try to justify the appropriation of power on the part of the Treasury Committee. Under the Bill, that Committee, which is made up of 13 Members of this House, would have inordinate powers unequalled by that of any other Select Committee. That would distort the relationship of the Treasury Committee to this House and give it a preponderant influence in relation not only to scrutiny but to the Executive branch through its power of veto.

The proposal imports an alien structure from the United States, and that frustrates and disappoints me. The American constitution is a very different beast with a very different history from ours. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, it has a strict division of powers. In America, no members of the Executive sit in the legislature. It is therefore right and proper that the legislature, as embodied in Congress, should have the power of scrutiny over an Executive who have no role in the legislature.

[Heather Wheeler]

We are getting to the heart of the issue. Surely this debate is about the fact that Governments govern and Select Committees scrutinise—full stop.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely. In her very direct way, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.

Finance Bill

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

When listening to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), I was reminded of the rather depressing speeches and interventions from some of his Tory colleagues in our previous debates on youth unemployment and the bank bonus tax, who showed very clearly that they do not live in the real world. They have no idea of the impact on young people of the chronic levels of unemployment they now face or the depressing reality that this is a repeat of what happened under the Tories in the ’80s and ’90s.

The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned Bob Diamond’s £100 million in bonuses, which, under the real jobs guarantee scheme, would create 25,000 jobs for young people. I wonder whether Government Members consider that a better use of £100 million in bankers’ bonuses, because I certainly do.

We have already seen new schemes from the Government which are depressingly familiar; they remind me of the youth opportunities programme and its successor, the youth training scheme, in the early ’80s, and of how benefits were withdrawn from young people during those years when there were no jobs. There are no jobs for young people in my constituency or in many parts of the country.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will always give way to a fellow member of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Heather Wheeler]

Why is it that in South Derbyshire the number of apprentices has gone up by 80%, when the hon. Gentleman says that there are no jobs for young people? What is going on in his constituency that is not happening in South Derbyshire?

[Bill Esterson]

People in the hon. Lady’s part of the world must be incredibly lucky, because it must be the only place in the country where that is the case.

In reality, every Member knows that the youth unemployment figure has gone over the 1 million mark; that is a fact which everyone here accepts.

Beer Duty Escalator

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I would never dream of supposing that I knew more than Treasury Ministers, but that would certainly be a good idea to bear in mind for future Budgets. We must look at the economics involved. As I mentioned, there has been a 50% increase in the rate of duty, but only a 10% increase in the amount of revenue.

I have had the great privilege over the past few months of serving on the Finance Bill Committee, where I heard many emotive and brilliant arguments from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary about the need to get the balance right between the rate of tax and the money it brings in.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I must declare an interest: for 25 or 26 years, I have been married to a brewery man—and thank goodness for Bass and for Young’s. Many pubs in South Derbyshire are still under threat or are going to close, even though the Shardlow brewery, the John Thompson brewery and in particular the Burton Bridge brewery, which has just opened, are fantastic. I should also mention the Brickmakers in Newton Solney. We are trying to do our best, but the yoke of taxation is too high. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gavin Williamson]

I entirely agree. I think we have gone too far, and it is having a detrimental effect on the amount of tax revenue the Treasury can get from this important potential source. The Exchequer already brings in £8 billion in tax revenue from the beer and pub industry, but my concern is that that amount will go into slow decline. Already, the Office for Budget Responsibility and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have made it clear that the money coming in from the increase in beer duty is not going to increase. It has not done so in the past year and it is not expected to do so in the next year. We therefore need to look at different ideas. One of them is not to keep taxing. We have had many debates about the Laffer curve and its benefits, but the simple reality is that beer duty is getting to the point where it is too high and it is pricing people out of the market.

Interest Rate Swap Products

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for securing this debate. The mis-selling of interest rates has affected people in many of our constituencies, including mine. One of my constituents, the owner of a geo-environmental company, wanted to take out a long-term fixed rate product. He wanted a portion of that loan to be paid off as and when he had the capital to spare, with no penalties. He also wanted a period of low interest or interest-only repayments to assist with cash flow as the company embarked on a further phase of expansion. To me, that appears pretty reasonable.

NatWest—a bank that has newly entered this debate—offered my constituent what he thought he was looking for at the time and a product that fulfilled his core requirements. He was given the option of fixing the interest rate by entering into an interest rate swap agreement with the investment banking arm of RBS—that wonderful bank that we have again heard about today. He was given a complicated document but believed that it represented a mechanism for fixing the interest rates. He was given a loan of 1% above base rate but his agreement had no expiry date and, in conjunction with the interest rate swap agreement, provided an effective fixed rate of 6.19% for 10 years.

In January 2009, when interest rates were falling and looked as if they would remain low, my constituent was referred to RBS global restructuring group. He inquired whether he could break the fixed rate interest agreement because it was costing his company dearly. It became apparent, however, that he could do so only if his company incurred a large financial penalty, which at the time totalled £175,000—equivalent to 19.4% of the original loan. A break clause was written into his agreement, but it could be acted on only by NatWest, and the punitive break fee meant it was totally impossible for my constituent to refinance with another bank.

In September 2010 as part of a review of my constituent’s loan, RBS increased the lending margin by 1% to 2%. That increased the interest rate to 7.19%, which made a mockery of the fixed rate that had been promised back in 2007. Interest rates were at an historic low of 0.5%, but my constituent was effectively denied the opportunity of taking advantage because he was locked into his IRSA.

[Damian Collins]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the high cost of such exit arrangements means that the banks are profiteering from small businesses that operate on tight margins, and does not in any way reflect the true cost of the refinancing to the bank?

[Heather Wheeler]

Absolutely; that scandal has emerged from today’s debate.

In January 2012, my constituent was informed that, because his debt to RBS included the fee for breaking the IRSA agreement, the cost of the loan had increased further to a mind-boggling 23.8% of the loan—approximately £215,000. He was also informed that, even if he sold his property to repay the loan in full, the IRSA would still exist, because it was a separate product from the original loan, and that the agreement would last for 10 years. That clearly was not fully explained to my constituent, who runs a small business with a healthy turnover of £2.5 million and employing 30 people. He is not a financial expert; he trusted his banks, both NatWest and RBS, to provide him with advice on a flexible fixed rate product, as he requested.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions trust. In everything we have heard today, has there not been a complete absence of trust? I think, not least, of a constituent of mine and their RBS relationship manager. Our relationships are based on trust and clear communication, but there was none of that. A simple loan developed into 20 swaps, which led to his losing £5 million, and this once-proud business man has now lost his business, which has broken him. He is a broken man, because of the unaccountable lack of trust in banks such as RBS.

[Heather Wheeler]

That is a salutary lesson The banks have lost the trust of the country, and, having listened to all the stories today, we now understand why. I feel great compassion for my hon. Friend’s constituent.

The matter was not explained to my constituent, who feels strongly that if the IRSA had been explained properly, he would have understood the true cost of breaking the agreement, and instead would have opted for a variable rate or approached an alternative lender. Where was the bank’s duty of care?

It is not only a lack of clarity that makes these agreements so concerning. For another constituent of mine, the complaint is who is selling these products. Back in 2006, he wanted a loan to develop a garden business. He approached his bank manager and was advised to take out an IRSA to guard against rising interest rates to protect his business. His bank manager admitted, however, that he did not fully understand them himself, so arranged for a specialist to come from NatWest to advise my constituent.

[Neil Parish]

Does my hon. Friend think that, in many cases, bank head offices put huge pressure on local managers to sell these products, which local managers actually have no knowledge about?

[Heather Wheeler]

That is becoming clearer and clearer as this debate goes on and as more and more constituents come out and tell us their stories.

Two advisers visited my constituent and went through all the advantages of an IRSA, but they did not mention any possible downsides or advise him to take specialist independent advice about the IRSA. He was also told that he could not get a loan if he did not take out the IRSA, giving my constituent very little choice over the matter and putting him under considerable pressure to accept. It has since become apparent to him that the so-called advisers were just sales people from the bank set on selling him this product, regardless of any consequence to himself or his business.

To my constituent’s knowledge, he having researched the matter, only two companies in the UK at the time were qualified to give advice, but both belonged to large City firms that would have been beyond his budget. My constituent is now left with a product that will have cost him £200,000 by the end of this year alone. I think we would agree that this is a considerable sum for a garden centre. He has had to make several redundancies, as well as personal sacrifices, to remain solvent, and his business is clearly feeling the ramifications; the turnover, which was £2.2 million at the time, has dropped, with the marketplace as it is, to below £2 million.

Furthermore, it is evident that banks are not taking claims of mis-selling seriously. Another constituent of mine, the owner of a motorcycle company, has had a long banking relationship with Lloyds. In fact, they used to use Lloyds to buy stock rather than property, and had loans from it for many, many years. It was important that they had this strong relationship with their bank, yet, since they fell into the trap of buying an IRSA, incurring huge costs, the bank appears to have little interest in dealing with the matter satisfactorily. In February, my constituent’s solicitor sent a letter of claim to Lloyds; it is now June and he is still waiting for a reply.

The situation needs investigating further. Constituents have written to me on this issue about three of the top banks—NatWest, RBS and Lloyds TSB—so the situation is far-reaching and needs to be dealt with. These heavyweight banks are effectively taking advantage of small business owners’ lack of financial expertise, bombarding them with the idea that they must enter into such agreements to get a loan. Indeed, this could be one of the biggest financial scandals to come to light since PPI. The agreements need to be made more transparent, so that people are fully aware that such products have significant break costs and are viewed as separate from the loans that the individuals concerned originally wanted to take out.

I urge the Minister to take steps wherever possible to support small and medium-sized enterprises and to ensure that where there is widespread misconduct against them, as in my constituency of South Derbyshire, appropriate action is taken to support them. I look forward to hearing her concluding remarks and hope that she will take my constituents’ cases on board.

Static Caravans (VAT)

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall address that point in my speech.

I ran a street surgery in Withernsea, a coastal town in my constituency, on Saturday. As I stood talking to people and handing out leaflets, perhaps as many as three out of 10 people said to me, “I’m not from round here, mate.” They were not staying in bed and breakfasts or hotels, because we have hardly any in the area; they were staying in static caravans. Two or three out of every 10 people going into Aldi, or into the bakery down the road, or spending money in the pubs were staying in static caravans. In addition to those directly employed in the manufacture of the caravans and in addition to the parks, however important they all are, the importance of visitors to the rural economy is immense. That is why there has been such a groundswell of feeling that this issue should be reconsidered.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I have two firms in South Derbyshire that are particularly concerned about the new tax. One is Mercia Marina, and the other is Truma, which makes fittings for static and other caravans. They both believe that 20% of their business could be wiped out overnight, should the tax come into force. Would the Treasury be kind enough to look again at the cost-benefit analysis for this measure? It will find that wider areas, including tourism and jobs, will be greatly affected.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I have good news, as I am sure the Minister will confirm later, in that the Government have listened to us. Hon. Friends on both sides of the House who represent East Yorkshire constituencies came together immediately after the Budget and we met the manufacturers. What we heard from them was chilling. The industry employs thousands in the manufacturing sector and tens of thousands in the parks. The Government estimate a 30% drop in demand, and that can only mean that thousands of jobs will be lost and that an industry that is struggling to recover from the credit crunch will be knocked backwards.

Living Standards

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

For the hon. Gentleman’s information, borrowing is falling year on year, and we are not going to get borrowing down by borrowing more—however often the shadow Chancellor claims that that is the case.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Opposition really believed in looking after low-paid people, they would have voted for the welfare cap and not voted against it? My constituents do not understand why they did that.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, which reveals a lot about Labour’s priorities. It is for Labour Members to answer why they pursued that policy. I want to address the point about welfare reform.

Fuel Prices

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I too want to thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing the debate today. Like many others in the House, I have received a multitude of e-mails supporting the FairFuelUK campaign. Expectations in my constituency and right across the country are very high indeed, and I think that some people are expecting fuel prices to fall at 7 o’clock this evening, on the back of this debate. That is not going to happen, however, and I have had to make my constituents aware that the wording of the motion will not provide a quick fix to the problems that they are facing.

Let me quickly raise one or two issues. Crude oil today is less than $115 a barrel; in 2008, oil was $147 a barrel. We have to ask about market speculation and what it is doing to the price of fuel and thus to our constituents. Like others who have spoken this afternoon, I represent a rural area, where people often have off-grid heating. That means they suffer more, not just from having to fill up their vehicles.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Do people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency suffer as we do in South Derbyshire from fuel thefts, which are common in rural areas? This applies to heating oil in particular, but transport companies also have their stocks of oil stolen regularly, and yet the police do not seem to be able to trace them.

[Mr Brown]

Dumfries and Galloway constabulary is first class at tracking and tracing thieves. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We often face this situation when the value of the product rises and people try to steal heating oil and all the rest of it. People have to heat their homes, whether it be with heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas, and they also have to use their vehicles. In some locations, there is no other form of transport whatever. For some, there is a bus until 5 or 6 o’clock in the evening, which can be very difficult when people need to travel a distance to visit other family members or friends in hospital. A car is thus an absolute necessity for many households.

We are seeing price differentials and we are certainly seeing them with some supermarkets. I am not going to name the supermarkets on this occasion, as the last time I mentioned just the word “supermarkets”, two or three of them were quick to write to me to express their anger. Supermarkets drive the price in our local communities: prices tend to fix around what local supermarkets are bidding from their customers.

Here we are getting towards the back end of the year and we see another price differential between diesel and unleaded petrol. The difference has gone up from what it was in the late summer—about 2p or 3p a litre—to up to 6p, 7p or 8p a litre today. I recognise that lies partly with the refineries, but surely in this day and age more investment should be forthcoming so that the price differential does not create an even greater problem for those who have decided to drive diesel vehicles.