Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Debate between Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I must say that I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, as I would expect more of him than that. I say to Conservative Members that we must ensure that we have the tools at our disposal in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I spoke about the importance of the furlough scheme, and we welcomed that. We will welcome Government measures that help to deal effectively with the challenge we face. There is a harsh reality, however, for our industries in Scotland, such as the tourism industry, which is important in my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman, as well as many others.

Effectively, we are facing three winters, and there is a truncated summer season. Our tourist industry barely exists over the winter months, and the last thing we need is to find that the UK Government are kicking the legs away from our industry by ending the furlough scheme early. The challenge for every Conservative Member of Parliament from Scotland is to ensure that if the UK Government do not provide the necessary support for our businesses and our people, those powers have to reside in the Scottish Parliament. Will Scottish Tory MPs stand with us and ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the powers it needs to do its job and protect the people of Scotland? I think we know the answer.

The Chancellor said that the UK is suffering because of covid-19, in common with many other economies around the world. However, the UK economy is likely to suffer worse damage from this crisis than any other country in the developed world. According to the OECD, a slump in the UK’s national income of 11.5% during 2020 will outstrip falls in France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the US. With the continued risk of a second wave hitting the economy and our communities in winter, the idea of the UK leaving the European Union at the same time is economic madness.

The outlook is bleak—there is no other way to look at it—and things are about to get much worse, unless the Government end their refusal to extend the Brexit transition period. Refusing to do so is the ultimate act of self-harm. With businesses fighting for survival, a bad deal or no deal will burden businesses with additional costs and red tape. Yesterday, the Financial Times told us that UK Government officials had indicated that a potential additional 215 million customer declarations will be required, at a cost of up to £7 billion. Businesses are fighting for survival, and the UK Government want to send them a bill for £7 billion. I wonder if the Prime Minister will put that on the side of a bus. That is not taking back control; that is self-induced madness.

We can stop this now. We can recognise that this is a price that we cannot pay in the middle of a health and an economic crisis. All it requires is political will. All it requires is leadership.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the injudicious dropping of a crisp packet would be enough for the Scottish National party to be asking for the extension of the implementation period or the scrapping of the whole project altogether? Might I remind the SNP—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has the figures—that more people voted for Brexit in Scotland than have ever voted for the SNP?

[Ian Blackford]

Really? Is that the best that Thanet can send to the House of Commons? Heaven help them. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we were told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom in 2014, Scotland would be respected and that we were to lead the UK. The question for him and for his Government is: why did they not respect the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU, with 62% of those living in Scotland voting to do so? At every opportunity in the past few years, the Conservatives, as they have been in every year since 1955, have been thoroughly rejected by the people of Scotland, and it is no wonder. We stood on a platform in the election in December about Scotland’s right to choose. The Tories said, “Say no to devolution. Say no to independence.” How did that go down? They lost more than half their seats and we increased our representation from 35 to 48. I think he has had his answer.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Ian Blackford

Committee Debate: 4th Sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 9th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. The experience of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber comes through very clearly.

I hope I can offer some help to the Committee. I realise that this is a complex area, but the hon. Gentleman’s new clause does not actually encompass the extent of the problem, which goes further. Under the old rules—extra-statutory concession C16 on the winding-up of companies, which was used widely until 2012—a group of directors or owners could wind up a company using a very informal method, but that did not cease their liabilities to that company. That liability extended for 20 years afterwards. That was then formalised under section 1030A of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, which gave a statutory basis to the informal winding up of companies with assets of less than £25,000. That provision is still used very widely. Directors or owners of such companies being wound up under that statutory method could still face 20 years of future liabilities, so although the hon. Gentleman has identified a problem in the system, it does not just apply to unincorporated associations.

The effect of the section 1030A of the 2010 Act, which came into force on 1 March 2012, is that directors and owners of slightly larger companies are going down the route of a formal liquidation, which terminates their liabilities for ever more. However, hundreds—if not thousands—of old, smaller companies using the old extra-statutory concession will still be caught by a section 75 notice. This is a very wide issue that does not apply only to unincorporated associations, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s new clause is enough to close down his concerns on future liabilities. Personally, I accept the Minister’s assurances, but I think this is the start of a wider debate as to how those liabilities can be cut down.

In the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 12, there is a problem with determining the proper value of a pension liability. It is not as sharp as just the transfer value that is often given, and we will need in future to be a little bit cleverer in how we actuarially assess pension liabilities.

[Ian Blackford]

On the basis of the Minister’s response, I will certainly not push the new clause to a vote. We have received assurances that the Government will look at these issues; I hope they will not only be addressed in the Green Paper, but that there is the possibility of legislation as a result of that. I think we all recognise—there is a consensus on this—that we have to make sure we can resolve this problem for the benefit or incorporated and unincorporated businesses. On that basis, I will happily leave things as they are for now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Investment Strategy

“(1) A Master Trust, after taking proper advice, formulate an investment strategy which must be in accordance with guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State,

(2) The Trust must consult scheme members on—

(a) the Trust’s assessment of the suitability of particular investment and types of investment;

(b) the Trust’s approach to risk, including the ways in which risks are to be assessed and managed;

(c) the Trust’s policy on how social, environmental, and corporate governance considerations are taken into account in the selection, non-selection, retention and realisation of investments;

(d) the Trust’s policy on the exercise of the rights (including voting rights) attaching to investments; and

(e) the right of scheme members to consider non-financial issues relating to their investments and be consulted on these issues.

(3) The Trust must review the strategy at least once a year, and revise if appropriate

(4) The Trust must revise the strategy at any time if there is any significant change to the information included in it.

(5) In the event of (4) above, the Trust must consult with scheme members, and the revise the strategy in the light of comments made.

(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations with a view to ensuring that the information disclosed under subsection (1) is provided in a timely and comprehensible manner.”.—(Alex Cunningham.)

A Master Trust must include an investment strategy which outlines what the Master Trust should consult scheme members on in areas of investment.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Ian Blackford

Thursday 9th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Blackford]

Reference has been made to member trustees making up 50% of the board, which is something I could not support. I can support the general principle that member trustees should be represented, that there should be elections and that they should be able to take the time they need to devote to this and get proper training, but I cannot support at this stage having compulsion as part of that, on the basis of the responsibilities that trustees have to represent all member interests.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I can understand the laudable aims of the hon. Member for Stockton North, but where such boards have had member participation, the reality has not always been a fantastic success. I had an oblique interest in the Maxwell pensions fiasco because I belonged to a firm of chartered accountants appointed to look into that big mess, so I have some experience of that. I was also a member of the Joint Committee that looked into the BHS pension schemes, which also had member participation. That really did not come out as a great success. There was no issue of fraud, but were those employee members really tough enough to stand up to an overpowering sponsoring employer?

What we have is different from the occupational pension scheme arrangement, for which I think it is good, right and proper for its members to participate. We are considering master trusts, in which thousands of employers may be involved. I am sure that there may be only a few hundred master trusts that would bother to adhere to the new clause’s regulations after they come into place. The National Employment Savings Trust is probably going to be the biggest master trust for some time to come, with possibly millions of employees involved, and I cannot understand how on earth we could have an election process involving millions of people and different employers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank my hon. Friend for outlining further the complexities of what the hon. Member for Stockton North is proposing. What we are looking for from master trusts is that they are well run, safe and that they actually perform for the pensioners of the future. With the greatest respect, the administrative costs of what he is proposing could actually outweigh any positive parts that he thinks will come out of it, so I cannot support his new clause.

[Ian Blackford]

I know that the hon. Member for Stockton North has stated that he is not asking for a majority of trustees to be elected, but that is exactly what new clause 1 calls for—it calls for at least half of the trustees of a scheme to be member trustees. I just wanted to clarify that point. For that reason, I cannot support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Ian Blackford

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Blackford]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I will be brief. Those of us who want to encourage pension saving, as we all do in this room, should encourage as much member engagement as is possible. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we have as much transparency as possible. It is perhaps relevant not just to this amendment, but to others, that the issue of members being trustees is important. We must recognise that we are talking about assets belonging to the plan holders and take into account the fact that a number of master trusts are also profit making. It is important that that process of transparency is open to members of the scheme and that there is full engagement by members, with members being part of the board of trustees and having effective training. We happily support that.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I will probably say something more about my opposition to member trustees, which would be a step very much in the wrong direction, and I fear that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton North would do that, but in a different way.

I agree entirely that the regulations under clause 12 will be subject to the Secretary of State’s involvement in laying out those regulations in due course, and under clause 13 the continuity strategy—what that might mean and what regulations we may expect are fairly well laid out—but I am afraid that, to my mind, “member engagement strategy” is wording that is rather too loose. If we encouraged such a strategy, I would like to see in any amendment what that might involve and an expectation of what we may see in regulations from the Secretary of State. I would not want a perfectly good scheme to fail because of an interpretation that might mean lots of different things to different people. My member engagement strategy might be rather different from that of the hon. Gentleman, so I will not support the amendment.