Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

There are a number of things. I reflected on them during the Opposition day debate on this subject when, as Labour Front Benchers will remember, I accepted their motion. We have of course learned a number of lessons, including on how Ministers monitor colleagues’ views about the way in which we deal with their concerns on behalf of their constituents. HMRC has confirmed that it is not planning a contract of this nature for this particular operation, but it will have more to say when it responds both to the PAC and to the report.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Given the NAO’s excoriating report on Concentrix’s failure to achieve savings targets, performance targets, serviceable staffing levels, sufficient levels of training, call handling accuracy, proficient contract management and competent decision making—while, unbelievably, increasing its commission almost threefold—would not the Chancellor’s time be better spent concentrating on getting a modicum of efficiency into HMRC, rather than popping off to Davos for a winter sojourn?

[Jane Ellison]

First, I want to say that many tens of thousands of people work for HMRC. It would do their morale a power of good if people in this House reflected on their current excellent performance and the improvements they have made on customer service compared with two years ago. I want to compliment them publicly on the improvements they have made.

We have accepted that mistakes were made on Concentrix, and that is the reason why the agreement was terminated. We will reflect on that further when we respond to the National Audit Office report.

Corporate Tax Base

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

We have until 10 am for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should ask questions, not make statements. There will be a chance for debate following the questions.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Hanson. If I may, I will set out a series of questions, which the Minister can pick up if she wishes.

First, in the light of paragraph 1.3 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report, which indicates that the Commission has formally withdrawn its 2011 proposal for the introduction by Council directive of a common consolidated corporate tax base, or CCCTB—it almost sounds like the acronym for a children’s programme—and the fact that seven other national Parliaments have given a reasoned opinion why the proposal fails to adhere to the subsidiarity principle, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole indicated, does the Minister acknowledge that the issue is in effect a dead duck, and that scrutiny and debate of it is therefore perhaps a little academic?

Secondly, does the Minister acknowledge, as noted in paragraph 1.3 of the report, that the question of the UK introducing these newly proposed directives is academic, given that they are provisionally lined up for implementation on 1 January 2019 and 1 January 2021 respectively—unless, of course, Brexit does not mean Brexit?

Thirdly, the European Scrutiny Committee’s report also highlighted that the Government had

“completely failed to provide either any substantive analysis or its view on whether the proposals are compatible with the principle of subsidiarity.”

The Minister referred to that, but the Committee specifically said that the Government had not provided any information. Why is that?

Fourthly, in paragraph 1.7 of its report, the European Scrutiny Committee expressed surprise that the Government had acquiesced to the ECOFIN conclusions of 6 December 2016 about an EU corporate tax system, given their apparent view—as set out by the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), in response to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on 29 March—that the CCTB would undermine our sovereignty and

“risk harming the competitiveness and growth prospects of the Single Market.”

Does the Minister agree with that conclusion of the European Scrutiny Committee?

Finally, given that the issue is academic for two reasons—namely that the Government will not sign up to the CCTB and we will be virtually out of the EU by the time any progress is made on the issue—what alternative do the Government have when it comes to tackling profit shifting and unintentional double taxation across Europe and beyond?

[Jane Ellison]

I should perhaps say in anticipation that if I cannot respond to any questions from colleagues, I will of course write to them. I hope that satisfies hon. Members.

I will deal with the points raised. There was a general question about subsidiarity. We do not believe that either the CCTB or CCCTB are necessary for the internal market to function effectively, so we do not accept the assumptions that appear to underpin the Commission’s proposal. At present, we are therefore not convinced that the proposal is consistent with subsidiarity.

The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned ECOFIN’s conclusions. They were high level in nature and do not commit the UK to anything. The Government have made our reservations about the proposals clear. As directives on direct tax, the files require the unanimous approval of member states before they can be agreed. We will continue to engage constructively. As I said, as can be seen from our co-operation on the OECD project and the substantial number of measures we have passed since 2015 alone, we are clearly very supportive of the intended direction of travel. However, we will not sign up to anything that unduly restricts our sovereignty over direct tax, as the current version of the file does.

The legal base was also mentioned, which I touched on. Article 115 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for EU legislation that directly affects the single market. While we think that it might be possible to make the case that that article is an acceptable legal base, we have broader reservations about whether the proposals can achieve their objectives, as I have set out.

The shadow Minister asks what is envisaged as we go forward; that question quite reasonably arises whenever we debate EU matters. He mentioned the timing, which clearly relates to when we will leave the EU. UK companies that operate in the EU and meet the conditions of the CCCTB would need to understand and operate under its rules if it were to come into effect. The amount of profit allocable to UK activities will remain the same.

From the perspective of double taxation relief, our rules and treaties should continue to operate as they do now. In fact, we have double taxation treaties in place with all of our European partners—as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath knows; we debated this on Friday—so we are not dependent on EU laws alone on such matters. Those are already in place and will continue to operate as they do now, so we do not think that that is too much of a material concern. I think I have touched on all the key points. Subsidiarity was mentioned, but I think I have alluded to it sufficiently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Some of the questions being asked today are crucial, but as I said in my questions, I fear we are in a period of transition before we leave the European Union, and thus many of our discussions are in danger of being more focused on theological, almost philosophical, and academic questions about European Union issues. There is a danger that we are fighting a battle that has been fought and, depending on one’s perspective, lost. We must move on. I recognise that it is important to scrutinise these issues, but there is a danger that we are scrutinising the past. Issues relating to the corporation tax base, or what we want to do in the context of Europe and the world, must be done in the context of the future, not the past.

When I read the document, I had a sense of fear or concern about some issues and I wanted to tease these out in my questions—for example, the ECOFIN issue. The danger is that in trying to tease out these issues, we are not dealing with what we will do from here on in, and are concentrating on the past. It is important to realise that the 2011 directives are toast; they are gone. The two alternative proposals will not come into effect because we will not agree to them, so they are academic. It would be best to concentrate our efforts on how we deal with corporation tax as a partner of Europe, not a member of it. Much as I think that is regrettable, we are where we are, and we need to move the debate on to post-Brexit, not rehash old debates and arguments that we have had many times. We need to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I thank colleagues for their contributions, which included a typically thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I will not detain the Committee too long in drawing some closing thoughts together. I thank the members of the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending this debate. The Government will continue to respond to these important debates, allowing parliamentary scrutiny of EU proposals. I take the point that the hon. Member for Bootle made, but I would not go as far as to say that this is all a pointless exercise.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand where the Minister is coming from, but I want to be clear: I was not trying to say that this is a pointless exercise—it is absolutely crucial that we have scrutiny of these matters. The point I was trying to make was that much of the scrutiny focused on what happened in the past, not what will happen in the future. We are having debates and discussions about things that are not really going to take us forward. That is the point I was trying to make—not that it was pointless, but that the scrutiny is the wrong scrutiny.

[Jane Ellison]

A fair point, and I welcome the clarification, but I would still slightly disagree. The debates we have been having about the challenges of international taxation and multinationals, which were laid out eloquently by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, are ongoing. They have taken place in the context of the G20 and the OECD, and will continue to take place in the EU. We will continue to have those debates after our exit from the EU because, as people have said, we are leaving the EU, not Europe, and we will continue to have very important relationships. It is important that we engage with this direction of travel, because this is hardly going to be an overnight process.

There was a slight implication in the contribution from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that compared to the OECD, the EU was a model of speedy progress; that is where I would sound my only note of scepticism. It is clear that we will be engaging on these matters for a long time to come, in a range of international forums, so the debates that we have are useful. They have been echoed in other countries. Other people have expressed issues and concerns, as we have as a country, and there have been other reasoned opinions offered.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) has summarised most of the things that I would have referred to. I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) for bringing the issue before us. I also want to touch on one or two points made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) about the Austrian school. As he said, the system is not adequate to deal with the task of resolving complaints. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) gave a passionate exposition of his constituents’ concerns.

I am pleased that we are debating this issue. It has been the subject of cross-party engagement, particularly in the work of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and that on alternative dispute resolution, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I suspect that RBS’s use of global restructuring is the most glaring example of how poor corporate governance and weak regulation can produce dreadful outcomes for individuals and businesses. Many of the small business owners affected have lost not just their businesses but their health. Under the current financial regulatory system there is a huge imbalance of power between small businesses and their financial services providers, as many Members have mentioned, and that imbalance needs to be redressed. When problems arise between businesses and their banks, as happened with RBS and the GRG, the dispute resolution options open to businesses are inadequate. RBS announced in November that it was establishing a new complaints review, but any ad hoc dispute resolution mechanism based on the internal mechanisms of the bank is clearly insufficient.

The failures of RBS were fundamental. Its actions were not just the result of a few rogue employees; apparently, those actions were RBS’s explicit policy. Employees were strongly encouraged to push small businesses into the GRG. Restructuring was required of companies, along with interest rate uplifts. Many claim that once small businesses were in the hands of the GRG, they were, to use a phrase, turned over for every penny that could be found. There was no great secret in the bank about what was taking place. Ostensibly, the fact that project “dash for cash” was in the system was celebrated, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) said. The intention could not have been more obvious, and it had little to do with assisting businesses that were in trouble.

The motion usefully highlights the fact that we cannot say that this was a problem at just one bank. The issue went beyond that; it was systemic, and we can point to the wider failings of the banking sector that led us here. The catastrophic failure of the system in 2008 made that clear. Poor regulations, excessive borrowing and incentives within banks all helped to drive the crash. Of course, the cost to the taxpayer was immense. On the IMF estimate, the UK bail-out scheme cost, at its peak, £1.2 trillion.

The lessons that should have been learned are clear. Banks have to be regulated well in the public interest and in the interests of the taxpayer. A laissez-faire approach is inappropriate for a sector of the economy as uniquely privileged as banking. Since 2008, British banks have placed themselves on a more solid foundation, building up reserves and conducting regular stress tests, and closer monitoring has been adopted by the appropriate authorities. That is quite right.

RBS’s novel approach to many small businesses shows graphically and in a historic way how things can go wrong. Poor management, avarice and hubris took the place of prudent management at the top of the bank, and other people’s money was used imprudently on the basis of hubris. The management were reduced to shoring up the balance sheet by almost any means necessary, and mechanisms must be in place to stop that happening.

Since the financial crisis, a consensus has grown up that a failure of regulation and regulators helped to drive the crash. Efforts have been made at a national and international level, but there have been troubling signs since the election last year that the Government may be going a bit cold on the necessary work. The proposals of the Vickers commission have been, as John Vickers has said, largely ignored, and the inquiry into banking culture has been scrapped.

I know that the Minister is in listening mode, and I hope that he listens today. There are challenges ahead, and we must have mechanisms in place to deal with them. To leave small businesses without even the protections available to consumers is to leave them very vulnerable, and we all know what happens to small businesses when they are left in such a vulnerable position. I do not want to harp on about banking failure, but nor should we go into amnesiac mode to save a few blushes. It is absolutely vital that we get the proper processes and mechanisms in place.

When there are disputes, it is essential that they can be resolved speedily and effectively. Ad hoc dispute mechanisms go only so far, so we need systematic arrangements. In previous cases, small businessmen have had to rely on expensive and inaccessible court procedures to obtain redress, and that is not appropriate. It is not enough, as the motion states, to establish ad hoc compensation schemes after the event. They lack the authority to secure public confidence, so we have to go further. It is much better to have the appropriate procedures in place before the event, and before things begin to go wrong. The motion rightly insists that the Government follow the advice of the Treasury Committee and establish an effective dispute mechanism for financial services.

I will bring my comments to a conclusion. It is essential that the malpractice in RBS is not allowed to recur. As has been said, the taxpayer still owns a huge share—73%—in the bank. The Office for Budget Responsibility now believes, on Treasury advice, I understand, that the stake may never be sold, or will not be sold for a considerable period. It is absolutely right that we should expect any bank to treat its customers fairly. The failures at RBS and its treatment of its customers would be totally unacceptable at any institution. At the moment, there is a wider case for at least considering the establishment of effective regulatory mechanisms, and not only such mechanisms, to change the governance and structure of our banking system. It is now pretty clear that RBS will not be sold for the foreseeable future, so it is perhaps time to conduct a full review of all the options for the future of RBS, including whether any alternatives would deliver better value for money for business and the economy. The key is to have a robust, independent and systematic resolution platform.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for his indefatigable pursuit of the issues he has raised today, particularly on the role of credit unions. He is supported by other Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). No reasonable person could disagree with anything articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West in his usual coherent, cogent and reasonable way. He has the support of Labour Front Benchers and of many other hon. Members in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend is in line with organisations such as StepChange Debt Charity, which welcomes the concept of Help to Save, but feels that the Government have not gone far enough in their commitment to facilitating saving. It says that only one in seven people eligible for the scheme are likely to take it up, and it supports the payroll deduction concept suggested by my hon. Friend.

Before I deal with the Opposition new clauses and amendments, I will first summarise our overall view. Although we fully support any measure that will encourage people to save, particularly young people and those on lower incomes, we feel that the proposed lifetime individual savings account will do little to help those two groups. In the Public Bill Committee, we heard a raft of expert evidence in support of that view, with many experts citing their concern that this may be simply another product in an overcrowded market. The products are not necessarily complicated per se, but the market is.

The Opposition will not stand in the way of the Bill, but we want to make a number of reasonable changes to ensure that the proposed ISA and right-to-buy scheme proposals do what they say they will do. Those with low incomes are already struggling to make it through the week, and they have seen the Government drastically cut in-work benefits. I do not see how people will meet the minimum threshold, particularly given the reports showing that half of UK adults have set aside less than £500 for emergencies. Some families will simply not be able to save £50 every month, as was raised by Scottish National party Members in Committee.

On the impact review of auto-enrolment, the Opposition’s wider concern is that the new savings scheme will interfere with and perhaps even have a negative impact on the automatic enrolment of people into pensions. Do the Government really want to gamble that, with 6.7 million people already auto-enrolled across 250,000 employers, they will not reach their target of 10 million by 2020? The Opposition new clauses and amendments are designed collectively to address the concern expressed across the board, including by the pensions industry, the trade union movement, Select Committees of this House and the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is that the lifetime individual savings account poses a threat to traditional pension savings and, most significantly, to auto-enrolment.

It is self-evident that automatic enrolment, which was mandated by the previous Labour Government, is an outstanding initiative that, as time passes, is starting to achieve the objective set for it. Hence our new clause 2, which proposes to place a duty on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to review the impact of lifetime ISAs on automatic enrolment annually. Auto-enrolment is one of the few success stories in the pension landscape, and it is widely acknowledged in all sectors to be right. We fear that, intentionally or not, the Government’s policy may put the wider landscape in jeopardy and be a dangerous path to follow. Pensions history suggests that this will only be recognised in years to come. We want the Government to review the situation and the impact on the auto-enrolment scheme annually to ensure that the introduction of lifetime ISAs does not have a negative impact on the success of automatic enrolment.

Similarly, not all employees will be auto-enrolled until February 2018, and the increase in minimum contributions to 8% will not be completed until April 2019. The level of drop-outs is relatively low among younger people, but we do not want anything whatsoever to jeopardise the maximum possible number of people enrolling or to provide any incentive for them to opt out. That is not an unreasonable position to take, given the implications of getting things wrong. We have therefore tabled amendment 6 to delay the commencement of the Bill until the end of April 2019, when all firms will have been auto-enrolled and the increase in minimum contributions to 8% will have been completed. The simple truth is that many people cannot afford to pay into both a pension and a LISA. In fact, many can do neither. The Work and Pensions Committee has warned the Government:

“Opting out of AE to save for retirement in a LISA will leave people worse off.”

Government messages on the issue have been mixed. The DWP has been very clear that the LISA is not a pension product, but the Treasury has proffered an alternative view.

New clause 3 is on independent financial advice. If the Government cannot get their position on the lifetime ISA clear, how will ordinary people in the street be clear about it? Compared with those of other pension plans, the benefits of the LISA are relatively confusing and unclear when set in the context of the wider market. That is why we have tabled the new clause, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that ensured that all applicants for a lifetime ISA

“have independent financial advice made available to them”.

In other words, the new clause’s purpose is to ensure that those opening a lifetime ISA for retirement savings receive independent financial advice.

Advice is crucial in purchasing any expensive product, in particular one involving post-retirement income. The advice would be offered automatically—through an opt-in service, for example—and the service provider would sign a declaration outlining the advice the applicant had received. Any provider would have to confirm the status of the applicant, whether they were enrolled in a workplace pension scheme, whether they had signed a declaration of financial advice and whether they planned to use the lifetime ISA for a first-time residential purchase.

Independent financial advice does not have to be expensive. In fact, to give an example, the Government could mandate a robo-advice scheme, which is an online platform where an individual can get independent financial advice. Given the putative simplicity of LISA that the Minister has championed, experts inform me that having a robo-advice scheme would be a reasonable course of action, although such a scheme would need safeguards. First, it should be backed up by accredited financial advisers. Secondly, the Government should take steps to ensure that no one company has the contract, something that is all the more important to avoid a repeat of the Concentrix scandal.

The Opposition believe that it is only right that anyone considering a lifetime ISA be given the opportunity to see its benefits compared with those of other schemes on the market. New clause 3 would ensure that people could make an informed choice with the benefit of independent financial advice. It would enable parity in the quality of advice for all those entering the scheme and mean that much-needed oversight and education about the benefits of the scheme would be in situ.

It goes almost without saying that a pension is perhaps one of the most important purchases a person makes. That issue has exercised the minds of many people in government, in the regulatory sector and in the products sector. The history of mis-selling has left a long, deep shadow across the financial products sector. We must take that into account—we cannot ignore it. With so many bodies from across numerous industries outlining their concerns that there is a risk that people will save into a lifetime ISA when it is not the most beneficial retirement savings option, I cannot see a reasonable argument against ensuring that applicants receive independent financial advice before opening an account.

Millions of people have lost confidence in much of the sector to some degree or other. As witnesses in Committee alluded to, that is partly why when people are saving they do so in cash ISAs. They are not sure about stocks, shares and other products and so put their savings into products that give them a return of 0%, 0.1% and so on—up to 1% if they are lucky. We must create an environment in which people save and feel confident that they will get a reasonable return on their investment, especially if that investment is for their later years. That, too, is perfectly reasonable.

On new clause 4, the Opposition recognise that many people want to own their own home, and would encourage people to do so if that is what they wish, but we are concerned that the Government’s housing policy will only inflate housing prices further, and that the lifetime ISA will make things even more difficult in a housing environment that is already strained because of the limited numbers of houses being built nationwide. I will not even mention the huge cost of housing, particularly in London and the south-east. The average figure nationally is as much as £250,000 and over £500,000 in the capital. That is why new clause 4 would require the Government to conduct a review, within a year of the Act coming into force, of the potential impact of the lifetime ISA on house prices in the UK. It would also require that the review be made publicly available and be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Evidence received in Committee, from the likes of Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, acknowledged the potential popularity of the lifetime ISA but highlighted concerns about its potential impact and argued that unintended consequences of the scheme were a possibility and a concern. Worryingly, fewer homes were built in the last Parliament than under any other peacetime Government since the 1920s. The lifetime ISA might help to overheat a market already short of capacity. The Government’s priority should be to try to mitigate, not to add to, the problem. I do not consider that an unreasonable point either.

People are increasingly chasing a product in a market that has low supply levels. As I indicated in Committee, it so happens that that product is housing. The facts speak for themselves: the Government are almost two years through their five-year housing plan—not counting the previous five years—and still falling badly behind on their targets. If I recall correctly, the OBR’s assessment suggests a 0.3% inflationary effect on the housing market from products such as lifetime ISAs. If there are 100,000 house transactions a year, at £750 a time, that will add about £70 million a year to prices. If we are to implement policies that will affect an already overheating sector, it is important that we take into account their overall impact.

New clause 5 calls for a distributional analysis. As mentioned earlier, the Opposition’s underlying concern about the lifetime ISA is that it will do little to help those on low incomes to save. That is why we would like the Government to produce, within six months of the Act coming into force, an analysis of the distribution of benefits of lifetime ISAs and Help to Save accounts, including of the distributional effects between households at different income levels, genders, people with disabilities, and black and minority ethnic groups.

We should not forget that the Government’s huge cuts to universal credit will see 2.5 million people in working families lose as much as £2,000 a year, even after the Chancellor’s recent minor adjustments. It is difficult to imagine that such families will have a spare £50 a month to put into a Help to Save account. I made a point earlier about the low take-up. Those who can afford to save are generally better off, so the lifetime ISA will deliver subsidies to those who least need them. Meanwhile, the danger is that the Help to Save measure, which is specifically for universal credit and tax credit recipients, might encourage those on low incomes to save money when it is not, at that point, necessarily in their best interests. According to the Women’s Budget Group,

“Incentives to encourage saving—via the ‘Help-to-Save’ and ‘Lifetime ISA’ measures”—

are

“likely to disadvantage women”

and tend to represent

“a move away from collective provision of welfare”.

It is concerned

“that in the future such individual accounts are used to provide an income during periods of caring, illness or disability…As women are both less likely to have funds to save and more likely to require time out for caring, they would be significantly disadvantaged by such an individualized approach as opposed to a collective system that enables redistribution.”

New clause 6 feeds into the overall debate about whether the lifetime ISA and Help to Save measure will be good value for money, particularly if they do not help those on low incomes and minority groups to save. We welcome the sensible measures to address the thorny issue of the low retirement savings of the less well-off, and anything that puts money into the pockets of middle and low earners is welcome, but I wonder how that aim sits alongside the Conservatives’ planned cuts—they are more like a heist—to universal credit. According to the OBR, the various pensions and savings policies introduced since 2011, including the lifetime ISA, will create a £5 billion lacuna in the public finances.

It is therefore imperative that the scheme benefits everyone in society, not disproportionately those who are already in a position to get on the housing ladder and save. It would be a real shame if the beneficiaries of the scheme were limited to those who were already able to afford to save and afford the deposit for a house. Given that the two policy announcements come at more or less the same time as cuts to tax credits, the juxtaposition of an investment of £1.8 billion in housing support for those in a better position to afford to buy against the significant cuts for those in lower-paid work will be seen at the very least as insensitive, and by some as crass and unfair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I echo the Minister’s sentiments about the scrutiny the Bill has received. I am grateful to the witnesses who came to our sessions, as well as for all the written evidence, informal information and contact that we received.

Of course, the provisions are in two parts: the lifetime ISA and Help to Save. No one has any objection to helping people to save; it is a question of how to do it. We are not convinced that the Bill will help people to save. We do not think that there is sufficient evidence to back up what the Minister said and we do not think that it sorts out the problem with the shortage of housing. It sets aside £1.8 billion by 2019-20, there are questions about its value for money, and we think that it complicates the market and might introduce a Trojan horse. Not everybody is convinced about it.

I am not sure that Help to Save does the business for those on a low income. It comes in the wake of major cuts to tax credits and only puts a little drop back into a very big ocean. The Government should listen to what many people, including our witnesses, have said. Nevertheless, we accept that we need to help people save for the future, and all the information that has been provided to us sets the scene for continued future debates. I thank the Minister for her helpfulness and civility throughout the process.

Draft Bank Levy (Double Taxation Relief) (SIngle Resolution Fund Levy) Regulations 2016

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 General Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Flello. This is one of those technical pieces of legislation with which Committees such as this deal daily, but which belie the importance of the provenance of the issue before us. Given that, I want to explore the issue in a little more detail.

I appreciate that we are dealing with regulations that give clarity to an element of the tax position of certain affected banks, as set out in regulation 5(1), while they do business in Europe. However, given the context and history in the background, it would be remiss not to remind ourselves why we are in this position: it is the result of the cataclysmic banking crisis. I say that not to rehash old arguments about the cause of the financial crisis and its dreadful effects on the economy and the lives of so many people, but to ensure that we do not simply wave this legislation through without contextual comment and certain questions being asked. Coincidentally, it also comes the day after the £500 million fine announced by the European Commission in relation to the Euribor case. We owe it to the taxpayers who picked up the bill to look at the context. It is important to do so because of the effect that the financial crisis is still having on people’s lives almost a decade later; many people’s lives and many businesses have been blighted. We agree that the single resolution fund serves a significant stabilisation purpose in the wake of the bank recovery and resolution directive, which only very few people could object to—for example, those who have been in some sort of political and economic solitary confinement for the past 10 years.

Looking to the future, we are unable to escape the fact that Brexit informs virtually everything we do in economic terms. In that respect, how this will ultimately play out in the light of the Brexit process is moving from delphic to opaque. We hope that, in the not-too-distant future, it will move to somewhere between recondite and abstract. On that note, perhaps the next time the Financial Secretary chats to the Prime Minister, she can remind her that there are nine flags in the European Union, if I remember correctly, that are red, white and blue, including the French tricolour. I think that is worth a mention over a cup of tea—and a mince pie, at this time of year.

I have to say that I was not inspired in any comforting way about the pathway to a post-EU nirvana by the comments made by some Members in yesterday’s debate, but we are where we are. That was clear from yesterday. We live in hope rather than expectation on that one and we need to be grateful for small mercies as things are moving along.

Double tax treaties are a key part of tax law for multinational activities. The simple principle is that no one should be required to pay tax twice in two different jurisdictions in relation to the same asset or profit. Of course, the problem is making sure that some tax is paid somewhere, and that that does not simply become a way of forum shopping, as it has become known, which means picking the jurisdiction with the lower rate of tax or the more benign system. For example, different jurisdictions tax derivatives contracts in different ways, so banks will look to the more benign treatment, which is unsurprising.

The purpose of double taxation treaties or arrangements is to allocate the liability to tax in given situations. As we know, the majority of such treaties follow the OECD model treaty. Such treaties will become a big part of our legal culture post-Brexit—in all situations, not just with tax—so the regulations are very important.

Specifically on the matter before us, at first examination there is little about the regulations that is controversial. That was almost implicit in the statement and the presentation from the Minister. If the aim is to implement EU legislation, there is little to be done. In other words, we must implement its principles, but we do not need to go further than implementing the core provision. However, the Government have some leeway on the precise form of the implementation of EU legislation, so I have some specific points to raise about the regulations, and in so doing I seek reassurances from the Financial Secretary—if not today, then subsequently.

First, we must ensure that no individual treaty permits a bank to direct its profits towards a benign tax regime instead of facing its tax liabilities in the United Kingdom. That raises the question of how the Government propose to deal with potential forum shopping by banks under the regulations, as I mentioned earlier. In addition, what tax avoidance measures are in place beyond what some—although not everybody—consider to be the relatively weak scheme governing the abuse of tax avoidance under the Finance Act 2013?

Secondly, there is good reason to believe that HMRC is underpowered in its personnel, and thus in its ability to investigate the practical implementation of measures of this sort. The Opposition are committed to investing in HMRC to make it fit to represent Britain in the new post-Brexit world. A key part of that will be negotiating bilateral treaties, and it is vital that we can protect our public finances, which means not allowing tax credits or reliefs to allow tax income to go offshore. Given that, how will the Government ensure that HMRC is in appropriate condition to ensure that the regulations are not abused?

Thirdly, regulation 5(3) relates to the calculation of the levy and its tax credits. There must be concern about the calculation of a bank’s equity, which is taken to mean its assets, as opposed to its liabilities, for the purposes of its balance sheet. It should be remembered that in the financial years before it fell into insolvency, Lehman Brothers Inc. was found to have deliberately understated the toxic assets on its balance sheet by entering into the infamous Repo 105 trade, by which it transferred $50 billion off its balance sheet temporarily while being contractually obliged to buy back those assets a few years later. By using such transactions, banks are able to mis-state their equity and liabilities too easily, which is important. Can the Minister guarantee that banks will not be able to do the same thing in relation to these regulations? Moreover, how will we prevent banks from juggling their assets between jurisdictions so as to reduce their liability to tax?

Fourthly, in relation to regulation 7, on determining assets and UK assets, there must be concern that the reference to UK generally accepted accounting principles—so-called GAAP—will permit the sort of fair value or mark-to-market accounting that permitted Enron to overstate its profits by fixing an entirely artificial market value for its derivatives and similar transactions. Can the Minister guarantee that such accounting treatment will not permit banks to understate their liabilities to tax in the United Kingdom?

Fifthly, there is concern that reference to “permanent establishment” in regulation 7(4) could allow a bank to use non-permanent entities to book its activities. One example, Citibank, had more than 2,000 subsidiary entities in 2008, and it is usual practice for banks to have multiple subsidiaries through which they seek to achieve regulatory arbitrage by booking assets in benign jurisdictions. Against that backdrop, is the Minister confident that the regulations will achieve the orderly raising of the levy against the banks? Do we think the regulations will do the job for which they are intended?

Sixthly—Members will be happy that I am coming towards my conclusion—in the brief policy paper from HMRC, the section on the Exchequer impact was blank, with reference to the Office for Budget Responsibility including the impact of the regulations in its autumn forecast. I was unable to find that impact in the OBR’s forecast, but I possibly did not look hard enough. Perhaps the Minister could help.

Finally, in relation to the monitoring and evaluation section of the same policy paper, a little more detail on the review mechanism and timetable would be welcome in due course. However, notwithstanding my observations and questions, we support the Government’s approach to ensuring that, in effect, relief exists so that double taxation does not put UK companies at a competitive disadvantage where there is imbrication between the bank levy and the single resolution fund levy. The question of ensuring equity or, as the policy paper puts it, a level playing field across borders on taxation for UK companies, and in this case banks and financial services, is self-evident, but the UK taxpayer should not be expected to provide largesse for those who want to have their cake and eat it.

Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, to part 2 of the SNP Partick Thistle supporters’ day. Part 1 was led superbly by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who gave a tour de force.

I want to discuss the civil service compensation scheme. May I take this opportunity to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my position as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group? I also thank the House staff for their excellent briefing on the issue, which I recommend to all Members.

We are finally getting to discuss this issue in the Chamber. After at least three business questions, a point of order, early-day motion 310, which, as of yesterday, has been signed by 109 Members, including representatives from seven political parties and two independent Members, and many requests for a debate, it is a pleasure finally to represent the voice of those who contribute to our public services and who find themselves, through no fault of their own, losing out financially.

On 22 September, the Government set out their formal response to the consultation on the civil service compensation scheme, including proposals that radically reduce that compensation. The issue will affect thousands of loyal civil servants, whose jobs are now at risk as departmental budgets continue to be cut and hundreds of Government offices are earmarked for closure. Areas affected include Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which are experiencing cuts.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

There are thousands of civil servants in my constituency, 750 of whom are residents. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of suggestions that civil service managers are encouraging staff to take redundancy on current compensation terms to help with the downsizing of the civil service, or lose out under the new proposals?

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to highlight that issue, because that is exactly what is happening. It takes away from our efforts, because we are both opposed to HMRC office closures, but the Government are forcing people to go on older terms rather than the new, drastically reduced terms.

For the benefit of those watching these proceedings, let me provide some background. The civil service compensation scheme is a statutory scheme that provides compensation for loss of office for reasons including compulsory and voluntary redundancy. In July 2009, the then Labour Government set out proposals to reform the scheme in order to control costs and to address elements that may be age-discriminatory. In broad terms, the existing scheme provided severance for those under 50 and early retirement for those aged 50 to 60. The civil service unions opposed the proposed changes on the grounds that they represented a reduction in terms for most members; that they did not adequately compensate those faced with compulsory redundancy; and that they compared unfavourably with other public sector schemes.

In February 2010, the Cabinet Office announced a modified set of proposals on which it had reached agreement with five of the six civil service unions. That agreement limited the maximum payment on compulsory redundancy to three years’ pay, where that led to a payment of no more than £60,000, and to two years’ pay for high earners. Additional protection was provided for those who were closest to retirement. The civil service compensation scheme was amended accordingly. The largest trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, opposed the changes and applied for a judicial review. On 11 May, the High Court ruled in favour of PCS and the amendments to the scheme were quashed, with the exception of certain changes designed to address elements that were considered to be age discriminatory.

On 6 July that year, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government said that they would legislate to cap payments at 12 months for compulsory redundancy and 15 months for voluntary redundancy. They hoped to negotiate a permanent and sustainable agreement with the civil service unions, at which point the caps would be withdrawn. The trade unions objected to the proposed caps because they were less than those in other public sector schemes, where a limit of two years’ pay was normal.

The current announcement about changes to the civil service compensation scheme comes just five and a half years after the then Minister Francis Maude imposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme in December 2010, promising that those changes were fair, affordable and right for the long term. It is hard to see what has changed so radically since then to justify this fresh attack on civil servants’ terms and conditions.

The changes can be summarised as follows. There is currently one month’s salary per year of service, but after the proposed changes there will be three weeks’ salary per year of service. There is a cap of 21 months’ salary for voluntary redundancy and voluntary exit, but there would be a cap of 18 months’ salary for voluntary redundancy and 15 months’ salary for voluntary exit if the trade unions were not to accept the offer that has been put to them. There is a cap of 12 months’ salary for compulsory redundancy, but the Government propose to change that to nine months’ salary. There is employer-funded access to the early pension option when individuals reached the minimum pension age of 50, but access to that option will now start at age 55.

The Government propose to cut the cash compensation payment, which means that they will reduce the rate at which compensation accrues for each year of service from one month’s salary, as it is currently, to three weeks’ salary. That will affect those with short and medium service, cutting redundancy payments by 25%. The Government also propose reducing the cap on payments, as I have said, which will drastically reduce payments, for some by as much as 30%.

In addition to changes to compensation payments, the Government propose restricting employer-funded access to early pension. That option is currently given to staff in voluntary redundancy situations who have reached minimum retirement age, which is 50 in the classic and premium schemes and 55 in the nuvos and alpha schemes. Staff are offered a compensation payment based on their salary and length of service, or they are offered the option to take their pension, with the employer buying out any actuarial reduction resulting from drawing the pension early. Cabinet Office statistics show that the average value of compensation for the 50 to 54 age group will fall dramatically, by more than 50%, under the new proposals. That demonstrates the profound impact that the reform could have.

Early access to pension has been a popular alternative to the cash lump sum compensation payment for those with long service who are nearing retirement, because it provides a level of security. That is important, because it has been shown that those aged over 50 often find it harder to get a new job, and that if they do, it may be for fewer hours and/or lower pay. We are all concerned, therefore, that restricting that option will create hardship and distress. In some cases, it will result in people relying on benefit payments.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is clear that the civil service is reducing. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for example, is now half the size it was 10 years ago, which is important to note when it is dealing with tax avoidance and all those other issues.

[Peter Dowd]

In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, is this policy not just another kick in the teeth to loyal civil service staff? Over the past few years, they have had substantial pay restraint, huge job cuts and a tax on pensions, on top of the previous changes to the compensation scheme, which he mentioned a few moments ago.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is being moderate when he says that the policy is a kick in the teeth. It certainly is, and we need to remember that these civil servants deliver precious public services every day, and they deserve to be treated better.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to his concerns. I know that, in his role as chair of the PCS parliamentary group, he takes a close interest, as do I, in matters relating to the civil service. I, too, greatly value and appreciate the work of the civil service. Now more than ever, the work of the civil service is vital to delivering the best service to the public and to allowing us to meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

To provide the best service for the public, the civil service needs to be ready to meet challenges and opportunities. The Government must therefore ensure that the civil service can recruit and retain the best people, but we must also ensure that there is an efficient and cost-effective compensation scheme in place to support civil servants when exits are needed.

As the hon. Gentleman set out, important steps towards this goal were taken during the last Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Maude, in his then role as Minister for the Cabinet Office, introduced important reforms to modernise redundancy arrangements in the civil service. A revised civil service compensation scheme was launched in December 2010, when my noble Friend Lord Maude set out his hope and intention that it would be a fair settlement for the long term.

In the years since 2010, however, it has become apparent to the Government that the reforms did not fully deliver on their aims. For example, we were concerned that the 2010 compensation scheme provisions for early access to pensions were no longer appropriate. These provisions allowed staff aged as young as 50 to retire and draw all their civil service pension without any reduction for early payment. This was often very expensive for the employer, and it is increasingly out of line with the Government’s wider aim of responding to very welcome increases in longevity by encouraging longer working lives.

More widely, the Government’s view was that, even after the 2010 reforms, the civil service compensation scheme was simply too expensive, when considered against the background of the current economic situation. We of course recognise the need to provide good financial support to bridge the gap into alternative employment or retirement—we of course recognise that—but the Government also have a duty to balance that against the wider financial situation and the interests of the taxpayers who ultimately fund the scheme.

The 2010 compensation scheme terms were becoming increasingly out of line with those the Government believe should be available more broadly across the public sector. For example, we have made it clear that we do not believe it is appropriate to pay six-figure compensation payments within the public sector, and we are legislating to put a stop to that. We are also embarking on reforms to compensation schemes across the main public sector workforces, so it is right that the civil service scheme is consistent with those wider reforms. For all those reasons, it was clear that further reform of the civil service compensation scheme was needed.

[Peter Dowd]

With public services under absolute stress and strain—many are at breaking point—what is modern and efficient about cutting wages, numbers and training, and massive negative restructuring, in the light of the chaos in the civil service that is about to unfold with Brexit?

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the skills of the civil service. In fact, the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead can and will be adequately dealt with by our excellent civil service, which we value greatly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The south-west’s productivity has drifted down since 2010 and, according to the House of Commons Library, the UK overall has seen the widest productivity gap with the G7 since 1991, when the data series began. What plans, if any, does the Chancellor have to pursue his predecessor’s so-called “Fixing the foundations” productivity plan? Or is that another failed policy that this Chancellor is trying quietly to jettison?

[Mr Hammond]

No, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the document we published last Wednesday, he will see that it contained a specific reference to “Fixing the foundations”, which is the base document setting out the Government’s agenda for addressing productivity issues. Of course, the key announcement in last week’s autumn statement was an additional £23 billion of borrowing specifically targeted at the highest-return investment projects; this is designed to raise Britain’s productivity by raising the productivity performance of our regional cities, in particular, and our regions more generally, to that of London and the south-west.

[Peter Dowd]

It is six years late. The productivity gap has widened for both the south-west and the country, and so has the gap in earnings and wages. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the outlook for wages is “dreadful”, with workers likely to earn less in real terms in 2021 than they did in 2008, and with the biggest losers being lower-income families, with the poorest third likely to see incomes drop. So in tandem with action on the productivity crisis, what are the Chancellor’s plans for action on the wages crisis?

[Mr Hammond]

First, if the hon. Gentleman that if he looks at real household disposable incomes, he will see that the picture is rather brighter, and they present a much more real picture of what people in the economy are experiencing. He is right to say that real wages are a reflection of productivity performance, and the only way sustainably to raise real wages is to raise the productivity performance of this economy. So rather than whinging about whether something was done this year, last year or six years ago, and perhaps with a careful eye on the performance of the previous Labour Government in this area, he might care to welcome the announcement made last week as an appropriate initiative to try to raise the UK’s productivity performance, and raise real wages and living standards over the long term.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jane Ellison]

I will try to observe your stricture, Mr Wilson, and not go over ground that we have already covered.

The Government do not disagree with the intention that everyone should get good advice before they take out a pension, and I certainly would not argue with the fact that for many of us, however well-informed we might like to think ourselves, such things can be confusing. The reason I will ask that the clause be withdrawn is simply that the solution it presents is not correct. Also, there are things in place to steer people, which I will touch on.

It is worth reminding the Committee about the definition of advice and guidance. “Advice” is financial advice involved in the provision of a personal recommendation for a specific product. It takes into account the wider circumstances of the person to whom the advice is given, and must be suitable for them. The definition also mentions regulated products. That is at the heart of the matter. I give a commitment that the Government will ensure that clear and accessible information about the lifetime ISA and Help to Save is available, so that potential customers can make an informed choice about whether the accounts are right for them.

Our impact assessment, which was based on a costing certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, shows that our costings do not assume that people will opt out of workplace pensions to save into a lifetime ISA. However, as I have outlined, it is ultimately the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority, not the Government, to set the regulatory framework for providers that will offer the lifetime ISA, including setting out any suitability tests that should apply. The FCA will consult on its regulatory framework shortly. It will ensure that providers are transparent to customers about the product, and that the products are sold with suitable safeguards in place.

I recognise the importance of individuals making an informed choice about whether Help to Save is right for them. Some may well be the same people who stand to benefit enormously from auto-enrolment. I have stated our commitment to that a number of times. We know that the Help to Save target audience may have less experience of financial products than the population on average. That is why we have already committed to work with interested parties to ensure that the right support and information are available, so that eligible people can decide whether the account is right for them. That will involve information and support from Government and the account provider, but we are also keen to explore a role for local organisations that are well placed to support the target population, such as local charities, advice bodies, social housing providers and the Churches, many of which have very good outreach and advice provision for people suffering from financial exclusion.

While we want to ensure that people have the information that they need, we must ensure that opening an account is as straightforward as possible. Requiring the account provider to give financial advice to every applicant makes the account application process more complex and time-consuming, and risks discouraging eligible people from opening an account. Countless studies show that the more hurdles there are to opening an account online, the more people are likely to fall away. Getting the balance right is really important.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I completely acknowledge that. The Minister referred to more hurdles being put in people’s way. Does she agree that many people out there wish some hurdles had been put in their way to prevent them from buying things that they did not want, instead of something that they would have preferred?

[Jane Ellison]

I totally accept that point. I suspect that some of us on the Committee would put ourselves in that category, casting their mind back over the years. The point is that the regulatory landscape today is very different from what it was; the hon. Member for Luton North made that point in one of our debates last week.

The Government are fully committed to providing advice. The Treasury sponsors the Money Advice Service, which has started to play a greater role in co-ordinating financial education programmes in schools. We have seen a lot more progress on that. We have the 10-year financial capability strategy, led by the Money Advice Service and supported by industry, which aims to improve financial capability across the nation. We see many different bodies going into schools and working with young people. There is always more to do, but I genuinely think that we are looking at a very different landscape from that of some decades ago. While we would never be complacent, that is why we want to take all the measures that I have mentioned to provide advice and information.

We have to find a balance in ensuring that people can access accounts that could greatly benefit them and their family. It is worth reiterating that with Help to Save, people’s money is not locked away. If individuals change their mind or decide the scheme is not for them, they are free to close their account and withdraw their savings, free of charge. I want to end with that reminder. We have designed the product with maximum flexibility in mind for a group of people whose current financial exclusion we should be ashamed of as a nation. We want to do something about that.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Third sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Impact review: automatic enrolment and pensions savings—

“(1) HMRC must review the impact of Lifetime ISAs on workplace pensions automatic enrolment and pensions savings within one year of this Act coming into force and every year thereafter.

(2) The conclusions of the review must be made publicly available and laid before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would place a duty on HMRC to review annually the impact of Lifetime ISAs on automatic enrolment.

New clause 2—Lifetime ISAs: Advice for applicants—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for all applicants for a Lifetime ISA to have independent financial advice regarding the decision to save in a Lifetime ISA or through a pension made available to them.

(2) Any applicant that opts in to the services offered under subsection (1) shall be given a signed declaration by that service provider outlining the financial advice that applicant has received.

(3) Any provider of a Lifetime ISA must confirm whether the applicant—

(a) intends to use the Lifetime ISA for the purposes of paragraph 7 (1)(b) of Schedule 1,

(b) has a signed declaration of financial advice under subsection (2),

(c) is enrolled on a workplace pension scheme or is self-employed.

(4) Where the provider determines that the applicant is—

(a) self-employed and does not participate in a pension scheme,

(b) not enrolled on a workplace pension scheme,

(c) does not intend to use the Lifetime ISA for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 1, or

(d) does not have a signed declaration of financial advice under subsection (2)

the provider must provide information to the applicant about the independent financial advice available to them under subsection (1).”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that ensure all applicants for a Lifetime ISA receive independent financial advice.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The Opposition’s new clauses 1 and 2 are designed to address the concern expressed across the board, including by the pensions industry, the trade union movement, Select Committees of this House and the Office for Budget Responsibility, that the lifetime individual savings account poses a threat to traditional pension savings, and most significantly to auto-enrolment.

Auto-enrolment has been a success story in the pensions environment. As Members will recall, witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee had one or two things to say about LISAs. For example, some made it clear that there is concern about the LISA interfering with the roll-out of auto-enrolment. Mr Davies suggested that although few object to the LISA, there is concern about

“where it fits within the overall landscape of provision for retirement”.––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 38, Q65.]

Given that, it is incumbent on us to ensure that any reasonable concerns are assuaged. The cost to the taxpayer, certainly in the longer term, was also of concern, given that for a standard taxpayer, the LISA is tax-free going in and going out, so to speak. Mr Davies of Union Pension Services certainly alluded to that.

New clause 1 would require Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to conduct a review of the impact of the lifetime ISA on automatic enrolment in workplace pensions and pension savings within one year of the Act coming into force and every year thereafter. The conclusions of that review would have to be made publicly available and laid before both Houses of Parliament.

It is patently obviously that automatic enrolment, which was brought in by the Labour Government, is an outstanding initiative and is starting to achieve the objectives set for it as the years pass by. It has been rolled out to large businesses and is well on its way into the small business sector. That is clearly good news, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge. I appreciate that neither she nor other Committee members are partisan on that matter. However, not all employees will be auto-enrolled until February 2018, and the increase in minimum contributions to 8% will not be completed until April 2019. Drop-out is relatively low among younger people. We do not want anything in the meantime to jeopardise the maximum possible number of people enrolling, or to provide an incentive to opt out; that is not an unreasonable position to take.

Auto-enrolment is one of the few success stories in the pension landscape, and is widely acknowledged in all sectors to be right. I fear that the Government’s policy—intentionally or not; I do not point the finger—may put the wider landscape in jeopardy and be a dangerous path, and the history of pensions suggests that that will be recognised only in years to come. By that time, it will be too late to turn back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles highlighted on Second Reading, the OBR agrees with that assessment, and has reported that the Government’s pensions and savings policies have

“shifted incentives in a way that makes pensions saving less attractive—particularly for higher earners—and non-pension savings more attractive—often in ways that can most readily be taken up by the same higher earners.”

The Minister may respond that this is not an either/or situation, but of course she would say that. I respectfully suggest that that demonstrates a potential lack of appreciation that many people out there cannot afford to pay into both a pension and a LISA. In fact, many can do neither. The Work and Pensions Committee has warned the Government that

“Opting out of AE to save for retirement in a LISA will leave people worse off. Government messages on this issue have been mixed. While the DWP has been very clear that the LISA is not a pension product, the Treasury has proffered an alternative view.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Work and Pensions Committee. That simply affirms that there is confusion over the matter. At the very least, that is the perception abroad, and as some people say, perception is reality. If we have learned one thing over the years, it is that confusion in the market simply puts people off.

Moreover, we heard in evidence from Ms Lowe of the Women’s Budget Group that making a LISA

“available to everyone does not make it gender-neutral”—[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 51, Q96.]

She said that account had to be taken of people’s capacity to access the LISA, and in that regard, many women would be left out. That is a salutary observation.

Although Mr Bennie from Scottish Friendly supported the LISA, he recognised that people’s experience of pensions was sometime bad, which could be a problem for take up. In response to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, he said that he recognised that for some, given their experience, pensions are a broken product. He also indicated that he saw LISAs as being complementary to a main pension, as did Ms Knight of the Tax Incentivised Saving Association, hence the Opposition’s caution about pushing on with this product without appropriate review.

It is fair to say that messing about with the pension system over the years has left people sceptical and blaming politicians for the mess. I worry that that we will be seen as messing about again, even with the best intentions. Our proposals today are a form of inoculation against the problem. The Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign is an example of a pension issue, albeit a public pension one, coming back to haunt us—or rather, it is the women concerned who are coming back to haunt us. That has shown the scepticism about pensions in general.

The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the Government conduct urgent research into any effect of LISA on pension savings through auto-enrolment. That is another sensible bipartisan approach to the issue, which, political banter apart, is worthy of consideration by the Government. After all, the wisdom of Conservative Members on that Committee—and on this Committee—is always welcome on these matters.

Our new clause 1 would require the Government to carry out the review every year after the passing of this Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the new clause, or at least take it away for consideration.

The purpose of new clause 2 is to ensure that those opening a lifetime ISA for retirement savings receive independent financial advice. Advice is a crucial in purchasing any expensive product, be it a car, house, university education, or holiday. The advice would be offered automatically through an opt-in service, and the service provider would sign a declaration outlining the advice that the applicant received. Any provider would have to confirm the status of the applicant, whether they were enrolled in a workplace pension scheme, whether they had signed a declaration of financial advice, and whether they plan to use the lifetime ISA for a first-time residential purchase. The Opposition believe that it is only right that anyone considering a lifetime ISA is given the opportunity to see its benefits, compared with those of other schemes on the market.

The new clause would: ensure that people make an informed choice, with the benefit of independent financial advice; create parity in the quality of advice for all those entering the scheme; and offer much-needed oversight and education about the benefits of the scheme. The purchase of a pension is perhaps one of the most important purchases a person makes. That issue has exercised the minds of many people in Government, the regulatory sector and the product sector. The history of mis-selling has left a long, deep shadow across the financial product sector, and we must take that into account. It is fair to say that all witnesses made this point, either directly or indirectly.

There was more consensus among the witnesses on the issue of complexity than a first assessment would suggest. Hon. Members may recall me asking Mr McPhail of Hargreaves Lansdown about his assertion that the LISA was a misguided policy. His response was that the product was not complicated—the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made to Mr Lewis—but that the pension landscape was complex. Mr McPhail said:

“The product itself is reasonably simple…but you have dropped it…into a complicated landscape.”—[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 20, Q40.]

I repeat that he never said that the product was complicated. The assertion from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that

“this morning we heard from some of the representatives from the financial services industry, who seemed to think that this was a complex product”

was seized on by Mr Lewis, who called that view “palpable balderdash”. However, Mr McPhail did not say that. What Mr Lewis said, which is more than reasonable, is that people need to understand what they are buying. He said of LISA:

“All products are complicated; all products can be explained…They have to be explained and they have to be communicated. They will take time.”

That reinforces the reason for supporting the new clause, and the need for independent robust advice, which, as Mr Lewis advised, should be given in

“nice, easy and real terminology and not jargon”.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading those passages. I was also struck by Mr Lewis’s comment that

“When you contrast these products with the state pension, they are pretty easy products to understand.”

Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that section of Mr Lewis’s assessment?

[Peter Dowd]

Yes, I am happy to. The point that we were discussing was that while the products may or may not be complicated, the environment and landscape in which they are being sold is complicated, as there are all sorts of other financial products out there. That was the issue.

The primary point is that if people are to make a decision about something so important in their lives, and especially a pension, they need as much simple advice as they can get, with

“nice, easy and real terminology and not jargon”.

[Huw Merriman]

It may seem a strange analogy, but there are lots of laws passed by this House that could be quite complicated; that does not stop us passing more laws that may help people, though. I find the defeatist attitude somewhat baffling.

[Peter Dowd]

I genuinely do not think that ours is a defeatist attitude. The responsibility of this House when we pass complicated laws, which we do all the time, is to make clear what they mean. I would rather we spent more time in here dealing with these matters, teasing and winkling out the issues, and being clear about what we mean. I would rather spend 10 hours in here dealing with an issue and sorting it out than one hour in here and 10 hours out there trying to unravel it.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle in his previous comments. In the Hansard of the witness hearings, Martin Lewis is very clear:

“The argument that they are too complicated is just a complete load of palpable balderdash.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 56-7, Q100.]

Those are not my words but his. He went on to say that there might be sections of the industry that think that they have products that could compete with those in the Bill, but if there is a product that is right, we should be getting on with introducing it.

[Peter Dowd]

There is a danger of an “angels dancing on a pinhead” argument here. Mr Lewis said that an assertion had been made—an assertion attributed to Mr McPhail—that this was a complicated product, and that has clouded the issue. I am trying to get clarity that that was not what was said. It is not the product per se that is complicated; it is the landscape in which it is delivered. There are so many products that people may get confused, depending on how much information and simple terminology they are provided with. All I am trying to do is pin this issue down.

If, having been auto-enrolled in a pension, someone opts out of it to go into a LISA, it is important that they have all the boxes ticked and understand exactly what they are doing. I say that only because of the point I made earlier. There have been so many scams and so much mis-selling in the past that when we introduce a product that some see, rightly or wrongly, as being in direct competition with a pension, we must ensure that people make their decision in full knowledge. We are trying to tie independent financial advice into the legislation. The Government may or may not accept that; that is a matter for them. I am trying to put the idea into the mix and get discussion on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that in. I reaffirm the point: we have a responsibility and duty to ensure that we nail this issue down. The last thing any of us wants is, in three, four, five or six years’ time, to have to unravel and unpick a problem we could have avoided in the first place. That is our intention. The new clause is not a spoiler; it is a genuine attempt to get the issue into the open.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Should we not reflect on what experts in the industry have said? Zurich said there is a danger that the LISA

“would derail auto-enrolment and reverse”

the progress made

“in encouraging…people to save”

for later life. We heard evidence on Tuesday that nobody would be better off coming out of auto-enrolment and investing in a LISA.

Specifically on mis-selling, do we not run the risk of ending up with financial institutions marketing the LISA in a way that is to its detriment? I cannot put it any other way: that is creating the circumstances for mis-selling, and having shaped the Bill in this way, the Government are responsible for that.

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That reinforces the concern out there. If his point was completely off the wall, I would say so, but it is not. Millions of people out there have completely lost confidence in much of the sector. That is partly why, as was alluded to by the witnesses, if people are saving, they are often doing so in cash ISAs—because they are not sure about stocks and shares and other things. They therefore put their savings in products that give them a return of 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, or 1% if they are lucky. We must create an environment in which people save and feel confident that they will get a reasonable return on their investment, especially if that investment is for their later years. That is perfectly reasonable.

This is not a question of protecting people from themselves. We are saying, “If you want to buy a product, look it over, and we will set up mechanisms to enable that to happen.” In a sense, it is for the Government to decide whether they believe that what they are doing is enough.

The Work and Pensions Committee said:

“We recommend the Government develop a communications campaign that highlights the differences between the LISA and workplace pensions. It should make it clear that the LISA is not a pension and that, for employees who have been automatically enrolled, any decision to opt-out is likely to result in a worse outcome for their retirement.”

It is not just the Labour party, the Scottish Nationalists or anyone else saying that; a bipartisan Committee that includes Government Members is saying it. That is why I said that there is a little wisdom there that we should tap into.

Opposition Members are concerned that the Government are not doing enough to ensure that people who are considering opening a LISA are fully aware of all the pensions savings options available to them. New clause 2 would require the Government to legislate to ensure that all applicants for a lifetime ISA had to prove that they had received independent financial advice if they intended to use the ISA for retirement savings. If they had not received such advice, the provider of the lifetime ISA would have to direct them to independent financial advice.

With so many bodies from across numerous industries outlining concerns that there is a risk that people will save into a lifetime ISA when it is not the most beneficial retirement savings option, I cannot see a reasonable argument against ensuring that applicants receive independent financial advice before opening an account. To paraphrase Mr Lewis, it seems palpably sensible to take that approach. I hope that the Government give careful consideration to our proposal and take on board the concerns that not only I but many people have expressed.

[Ian Blackford]

The Scottish National party welcomes the attempts by Peter Dowd, the hon. Member for Bootle, to ask the UK Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I think we would all agree on the broad point about wanting people to have access to financial advice whatever their income, but we are dealing with this Bill. The Government will consult and take soundings on the successor to the Money Advice Service and the other advice services that will be brought together, and I am sure that we will have a good debate about that in due course. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contribute those broader thoughts to that debate.

Let me turn to the current regulatory framework around the LISA. It is worth saying that it is not the Government’s role to set that regulatory framework. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about the different regulatory landscape at the time when he was being sold products—not particularly well, apparently. We are all thankful that that landscape has changed greatly since those days, and rightly so, but it is the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority to regulate the providers of ISAs, and it will likewise set the appropriate framework for the lifetime ISA.

The FCA will consult on the regulatory regime for the lifetime ISA throughout the autumn and will, as is its ordinary remit, ensure that providers are transparent to customers about the products that they are offering and those products are sold with suitable safeguards in place. We heard in some of the evidence sessions on Tuesday about how the industry wants to get advice right. Everyone has been scarred by what has happened in years past. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, we will consult later this year on the scope of the new financial guidance body, as a complement to the industry’s advice. We heard people such as Martin Lewis talk about the common-sense advice that people need to hear, and that is also an important part of the landscape from which people can seek guidance. I am sure that Martin Lewis and others will contribute to the debate about the new advice services.

I reassure the hon. Member for Bootle that information about the lifetime ISA will be available so that potential customers can make informed choices about which financial products to use. We want people to understand what the right choices are for them, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to require advice to be provided, as that would create a significant financial barrier to individuals accessing the lifetime ISA. It is the independent FCA’s role, not the Government’s, to set the regulatory framework for ISAs. For those reasons—not because I disagree with the spirit of his new clause but because I do not think it would work in practice—I encourage him to withdraw new clause 2.

I conclude my remarks about clause 1 by saying that the lifetime ISA will benefit many young people by supporting them to save flexibly for the long term. It is designed to complement the pension system, not replace it. The clause makes provision for the fundamental feature of the lifetime ISA: the Government bonus. We think that is a positive product for young people, and we do not want them to lose out on, for example, a year’s worth of saving and the compound interest on that because of the delay that has been called for. I therefore ask Committee members to support clause 1.

[Peter Dowd]

I welcome some of the Minister’s comments on both new clauses, and the spirit in which she made them. In the spirit of trying to move on, we will not push new clause 1 to a Division. We acknowledge that the Minister has said that there will be reviews of some fashion, though maybe not statutory reviews; we will take that away and consider it, and may come back to the question of reviews. Our concerns in relation to auto-enrolment can be appreciated. It has been a good product, to use the jargon, and we do not want to lose that. However, again, in the spirit of moving on, we will pull away from the new clause.

We will push new clause 2, on independent financial advice, to a vote, because this House has to lay down a marker when it comes to people’s future and making a significant investment in a product. The lifetime ISA is a significant investment, whatever way we look it. Importantly, it is also a significant investment by taxpayers; that has to be taken into account. If somebody wants a lifetime ISA, and rightly understands that the Government will put a lump sum towards it, it is not unreasonable for us to say that we expect that person to take independent financial advice.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says, but is it not important to have that commitment in the Bill, rather than just rely on the apparent sympathy of the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

It is, and that is why I am trying to push that message home. To some extent, we need to draw a line in the sand.

[Jane Ellison]

Given that some of the debate on new clause 2 has been about the concern that the product would be insufficiently attractive to people on lower pay, the practical nature—not the spirit—of what the hon. Gentleman proposes would essentially be regressive, and make the product less attractive to those on lower incomes, whom we wish to attract.

[Peter Dowd]

I completely understand that. The Bill is full of principles: we want people to save and to have pensions, to have the Government cough up towards that, and the individual to put money in personally. There is a whole series of things that we say must be part of the process in principle. For us, there is also the principle at stake of seeking independent financial advice. That is not unreasonable.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about independent financial advice. The Minister also made an important point about the cost of that advice. From the evidence we heard, it came across strongly to me that for most people on moderate incomes, this product is a lot less advantageous than putting the money into a pension and attracting employers’ contributions. That is why independent advice is so important, and why this product is not very attractive for anybody on a normal salary.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a reasonable point to make. The question is: what is the reasonableness of the argument? The Minister, again perfectly reasonably, makes her point. I do not necessarily accept the figures that she gave, but I take at face value the point that she makes. On balance, people have found that not taking independent advice on such matters was a little costly in the short term, but in the long term, if they did not get the right advice, it was even more costly. That bill has to be picked up by someone, and we are not talking about a few pounds—we are talking about people’s lives in the future, and it is difficult to put a price on that. We recognise the points that the Minister made, and the spirit in which she made them, but as a matter of principle, we want to press new clause 2 to a Division, just to get it into the mix.

[The Chair]

May I explain the procedure? We will not vote on new clauses yet. We will vote on them after we have finished discussing the amendments and the rest of the Bill. At that stage, it will be open to anyone to press new clause 1 to a vote, if they want to, and then we can have a Division on it, if that is the will of the Committee, and similarly for new clause 2. I have made a note that the hon. Member for Bootle wishes to press new clause 2 to a Division at the appropriate time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Lifetime ISAs: further provision

Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

New clause 3 would require the Government to conduct a review within a year of the Act coming into force of the potential impact of the lifetime ISA on house prices in the United Kingdom. The review must be made publicly available and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Opposition recognise that many people want to own their own home. However, we are concerned that the Government’s housing policy will only inflate house prices further. We have concerns that the LISA will make things even more difficult in a housing environment that is already strained because of the limited number of houses being built nationwide, not to mention the huge cost of housing, particularly in London and the south-east; the average figure is £250,000.

Evidence to the Committee on Tuesday was cautionary. Martin Lewis from MoneySavingExpert.com, while acknowledging the potential popularity of the LISA, flagged up its potential impact on the housing market. He highlighted that

“Unintended consequences are possible—the lifetime ISA might pump the housing market, which is a concern”.––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 50, Q95.]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, referring to the Office for Budget Responsibility, made a similar point.

I do not want to over-emphasise the point, but it is worth noting—and perhaps assessing, as suggested in the new clause—the effect of the LISA on house prices overall. It is worrying that fewer homes were built in the last Parliament than under any previous peacetime Government since the 1920s. LISA may help—if that is the right word—to overheat a market that is already short of capacity. The Government’s priority should be to try to mitigate that, not to add to the problem. I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.

The fact is that people are increasingly chasing a product in a market that has low supply levels. It so happens that the product is a house. The facts speak for themselves. Since I sat on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee around this time last year—it may well have been in this very room—the housing market has remained pretty tight, with supply remaining low. The national planning policy framework, which the Government were warned would create confusion, has done so. That all adds to the broth and is creating problems. By now, according to the plan, and the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), there have should been a better housing supply. Alas, he was wrong.

The lifetime ISA, which will in effect replace the help to buy ISA in due course, provides a Government bonus that can be used towards a deposit on a house—if one can be found. If I remember correctly, concern was expressed by a witness that the help to buy ISA had been poorly articulated, and that the current one was potentially being poorly articulated as well. There was the impression that an ISA could be used for a deposit. Of course, there was a smorgasbord of consternation, anger, disappointment, frustration and bewilderment when many young people found that that was not the case. The problem is that if people are encouraged to borrow money for a house in a tight market, the more house prices rises, the bigger mortgages they need, and so on. The fact that the Government are helping to do that is not helpful. The problem is exacerbated. When the growth of mortgage lending outpaces the supply of housing, prices just keep rising and rising, making it increasingly difficult for people to access the housing market at a reasonable rate. There is no doubt about that.

The Government have identified the right problem but are coming up with the wrong solution. We need to build more houses. That is the only way to solve the housing crisis. New products are fine, as far as they go. Lots of people welcome the LISA—I cannot argue against that—and many people do not, but the comprehensive solution is to deal with the continuing housing supply problem. It is worth noting that the house shortage is simply a physical manifestation of the shortage of skills in the construction sector in general and the housing market in particular.

The Government are almost two years through their five-year housing plan, not counting the previous five years, and we are still falling badly behind on targets. The question is whether the proposals really deal with the substantive issue of supply, and the answer is no. In that context, it is important to look at whether this policy will have an impact on house prices. If it will, in addition to there being a lack of action on housing policy in general, that is a concern. It is legitimate to ask the Government to review the impact on the housing market of this product.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause. Many of us have long been concerned about the massive rise in house prices. I will give a simple example. When I bought my first house in Luton in 1969, house prices were three times average earnings. Now in Luton, they are 12 times average earnings.

Millions of people are seeing the possibility of home ownership disappearing. Owner-occupation is in decline; it is becoming a smaller sector, and we are seeing an opening up of major social divisions between owner-occupiers and renters. For owner-occupiers, equity will cascade down the generations, and their children and grandchildren will stay in the owner-occupied sector because they will inherit the equity. Those who are not in the sector and do not have sufficient income will remain outside the sector, as will successive generations after them—unless they win the lottery or become extremely wealthy for some other reason, but that will apply to only a small number. The great majority of people will find it very difficult to become owner-occupiers if they do not have equity handed down by their forebears.

Adding extra cash to help people who are already likely to be in a position to buy their own home will simply increase house prices further and take home ownership even further away from those who do not have equity and are unlikely to be able to afford a home. We have to see some action by Government over time at least to stabilise house prices, so that more people can get into owner-occupation, and so that those who aspire to be a homeowner have a realistic prospect of becoming one.

I support what my hon. Friend said. We have to build many more houses. The only way to stabilise house prices is to raise supply, not increase demand, which would just push house prices up. It is not the price of houses that is increasing, but the price of the land on which they are built. The cost of building a house does not increase by that amount; it is the land on which it is built. There is a case for land value taxation and doing something about the price of land.

It is a mad world. In 1969, I thought becoming an owner-occupier was a bit of an adventure, but I could afford it on one income—mine, which was not massively high, because I was a trade union research officer. Nevertheless, I could afford to buy a three-bedroom house with a garage and gardens back and front—a nice, typically British home, which we might all aspire to. If I were trying to buy the same house now, with the same sort of income, in the same town, I would have great difficulty. On my generous parliamentary salary, I might stand a better chance, but not on the salary that I had at the time, so I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle is absolutely right, and I support his new clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

We think that the new clause is unnecessary, and I have outlined the practical problems in coming to the definitive picture that the hon. Member for Bootle seeks. I therefore urge him not to press the new clause. In conclusion, schedule 1 sets out some of the important and detailed rules for how the lifetime ISA will operate, and I therefore ask Committee members to support it.

[Peter Dowd]

To start with, I telegraph the fact that we will not pursue this matter. However, it is important to get on the record the fact that where Government policy has an effect on house prices, it is important—given the current state of the housing market, which is overheating due to lack of supply—to have that logged and noted, however marginal the effect appears to be. I am not suggesting that the Minister has brushed that point aside, but it is our responsibility to bring that effect to account.

The Minister quoted some figures on seeking advice for particular products, but 0.3% inflation on housing is a fair old amount of money. If that is 100,000 transactions a year of around £750, that is the best part of £70 million-odd a year added to house prices by this policy alone. If we are to introduce policies that add to an already overheating sector, it is important that as a nation, a Government and a Parliament, we take into account their impact. That additional £750 for that person is £750 not going somewhere else in their budget. I only say that to try to get that issue into the smorgasbord of issues that we have to take into account. I will not be pursuing the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

Government contributions to Help-to-Save accounts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jane Ellison]

The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s mission to build a country that truly works for everyone, not just the privileged few. Clause 2 introduces the Help to Save product, and we can be extremely encouraged that it speaks directly to that mission. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation cited in the House of Commons Library briefing paper shows that between a quarter and a third of households have said that they are unable to make regular savings for rainy days. According to the family resources survey, a household with less than £25,000 in income is twice as likely to have no savings as a family with more than £50,000. We heard from the debt charity StepChange in its written submissions—this point was amplified in its contribution to the evidence session—that access to a £1,000 savings pot can reduce the likelihood of the average family falling into debt by almost half.

Faced with that evidence—and the evidence we all know from our constituency surgeries of people living fragile financial lives, where one thing going wrong can tip them into debt or other problems—it is only right that we provide a strong incentive and reward for working households on lower incomes to build a savings buffer.

Help to Save will support up to 3.5 million people on lower incomes who are just about managing but may be struggling to build up their savings. It will help them develop their financial resilience and ability to cope with unexpected financial pressures. Clause 2 sets out the main characteristic of Help to Save: the Government bonus or contribution, which will be paid by the paying authority. The bonus will be paid at 50% of the highest balance achieved in the account. Over the four-year maturity period of the account, an eligible individual can save up to £2,400 and earn a Government bonus of up to £1,200. We intend that HMRC will pay any bonus amounts due and that that will be passed to eligible individuals by the account provider. Schedule 2, which we will consider shortly, makes further provision in relation to Help to Save accounts and the Government bonus.

Help to Save will meet a real need and will support many of those who are just getting by, helping them to build their financial resilience and supporting their ability to cope with financial shocks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Help-to-Save accounts: further provision

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 17, line 31, at end insert ‘( ) a credit union;”.

It was terribly remiss of me not to say that, as a relatively new Member, I appreciate your helpfulness in the Committee, Mr Chope. Thank you very much for that.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) expressed concern that credit unions, which in many areas have an excellent community base, command huge levels of trust and are embedded in communities, are not, in effect, one of the account providers. Hon. Members who were present at Second Reading, or who no doubt assiduously read the report of the proceedings subsequently, will know that my hon. Friend made a number of very important points, including about qualification periods and the role of credit unions in the scheme. His arguments were listened to with attention and deserve fair consideration in relation to product flexibility, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gracefully agreed to meet him and the Association of British Credit Unions. Given that, I suspect that part of those discussions will be wide and may encompass the role of credit unions as providers, so I will not push the matter today. I just wanted to get the point across that we know that a meeting will be held and we hope that it will lead to constructive discussions and outcomes.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I will be brief in supporting the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bootle. Including credit unions as providers is critical, given the vast number of savers who use community credit unions to build up incomes for later life. Many credit unions set up local pay-in points such as shops or community centres and are increasingly important, given the withdrawal of the banks from many of the communities that credit unions represent. Therefore I wholly support the amendment.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

I echo the comments that have been made about credit unions. I am sure that many of us, on both sides of the Committee, have credit unions in our local area. There is an excellent one in Wandsworth, which I do what I can to support with publicity and signposting for constituents. I certainly place on the record our admiration for the credit union movement. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle, said, there will be a meeting. His colleague the hon. Member for Harrow West made a very good speech on Second Reading, and I am glad that that meeting will take place.

This debate is about who provides the Help to Save product. We were clear in our consultation that the options for delivery were to engage a single provider to guarantee nationwide provision, or to open the opportunity to offer the account to a wider range of providers on a voluntary basis. Although we are keen to explore the potential for credit unions to be involved and we of course acknowledge, as I have done, the valuable work that they do in our communities, we believe that they could not guarantee the nationwide provision of accounts that we seek.

Appointing National Savings and Investments as the scheme provider, which we have obviously made public, does involve our funding it for nationwide account provision, but it also means that we can work with a single provider to ensure that accounts are easily accessible to all eligible people, and it removes what could be the significant administrative and compliance costs associated with allowing a range of providers to offer accounts. Those could include costs associated with approving providers, checking for multiple account opening, checking and paying bonus claims from different providers and ensuring that each provider is operating the account correctly.

An option whereby we funded NS&I to provide accounts while we also allowed other providers to offer accounts on a voluntary basis would not provide value for money in this environment. A product such as this operates very much at the value-for-money end of the market. However, I am clear that we should not rule out the option for a range of providers, including credit unions, voluntarily to offer accounts in the future if that would deliver national coverage, and I reassure the Committee that the Bill has been drafted to accommodate different models of account provision, should that situation arise. In the meantime, we will work with the credit union sector to explore further options for Help to Save that work for it.

The hon. Member for Bootle has indicated that he will not seek to press the amendment to a vote, and with those points and that clarification in mind, I urge him to withdraw it.

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the Minister for those words. I think it would be inappropriate to take up the Committee’s time pursuing the amendment any further at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ian Blackford]

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 18, line 16, leave out “maximum” and insert “average”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

The amendments are about the scheme rules on monthly deposit limits. They would provide that rather than the maximum monthly deposit being set at £50, a saver could add an average of £50 per month to their account, calculated over a two-month period. That would allow individuals to make additional catch-up payments to their Help to Save accounts in the event that they did not use their full £50 deposit allowance in a preceding month.

We consulted on whether individuals should be able to pay in excess of the £50 monthly deposit limit to catch up on either unused monthly allowances or withdrawals. Respondents were clear that that would add complexity to the scheme for savers and account providers, and given the objectives of the scheme and our desire for the product to be straightforward and simple, it was vital that the account rules were kept as simple as possible to ensure that the scheme was easy to understand and accessible to the target group. Having an average monthly deposit limit would complicate the simple position that we propose in relation to account limits.

I entirely understand the spirit in which the amendments were tabled, but we consulted on this issue and the feedback that we received was that that was not the most straightforward way to proceed for the target group. It may also help the Committee to know that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that on average people will deposit £27.50 into their accounts each month. That suggests that a £50 monthly limit is adequate. We have actually raised that limit from the £25 limit that was proposed for the Saving Gateway scheme—a scheme that, as some Members will know, contained elements similar to Help to Save. Quite a lot was learned from it, because it was piloted.

[Peter Dowd]

The Committee heard evidence from Joseph Surtees of StepChange that

“When it was introduced in the Budget, the potential eligibility for the scheme was 3.5 million, but the impact assessment says that it will probably only reach about 500,000”

and asked

“how do we get…to the 3.5 million figure?”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 28, Q49.]

Does the Minister agree that, if we are to get a higher level of engagement, the scheme may need to be more flexible, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber?

[Jane Ellison]

It is certainly fair to say that we want to look at all aspects of how we grow the scheme and reach as many eligible people as possible. At this stage, we disagree about offsetting greater flexibility against perhaps great simplicity, and how we balance the two. Because of the way we have structured the Bill and its consequent regulations, there is quite a lot of flexibility built into the scheme in the future. We have the £50 monthly limit in the schedule, but there are ways that we might be able to return to the product and look at it in the future. I come down on the side of simplicity in this argument, and that is why we have proposed what we have—notwithstanding the evidence we heard on Tuesday.

The Saving Gateway, which was essentially the partial forerunner of this scheme, had a proposed limit of only £25. Given the OBR’s forecast that £27.50 will be the average deposit, doubling the limit from Saving Gateway effectively allows for people to make almost twice that average deposit. In effect, the upper limit offers the flexibility that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber proposes. It is also worth noting that the four-year duration of an account will allow savers to dip in and out of saving when they can afford to put money aside. Savers will still earn an attractive Government bonus even if they are not in a position to save the full amount each month. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.