Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Government’s acceptance in full of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in relation to its maladministration with regard to Equitable Life; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been had maladministration not occurred; further notes that the overwhelming majority of victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures; regrets that the Government made no further funding available in the Spring Budget 2017; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation to victims of the scandal as the economy continues to recover.

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the co-Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders.

This saga has been going on for more than 25 years. There have been debates in this House on many occasions. I am delighted the Government took action as early as 2010 to provide compensation for the victims of this scandal. This is a unique scandal, and there are three sets of individuals involved. For the benefit of all Members, I will in due course briefly go through the issues faced by those three sets of people.

It is clear that this is a unique case. When I stood for election in 2010, individual candidates made relatively few promises and pledges, but one of the pledges I made was to seek full compensation for Equitable Life policyholders, and I can assure those affected that I and my colleagues will continue this fight until every policyholder has received the full compensation they are due.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Given the failure of the regulator to identify, let alone expose, the problem, what information was in the public domain that a savvy investor could have taken into account and that might have alarmed him?

[Bob Blackman]

That intervention goes to the heart of the matter. The reality is that people who were investing their life savings in pension schemes, from the time when it was possible to take out personal pensions, were persuaded by unscrupulous Equitable Life salespeople to transfer those life savings—their hard-earned money—into a Ponzi-like scheme. They were promised bonuses that were unachievable, and the regulator knew they were unachievable. All was well while enough money was coming in, but eventually, as we know, the money coming in was insufficient to pay the bonuses expected, and disaster loomed. The key point, as my right hon. Friend points out, is that there was no information in the public domain, and individuals could not have known that they would be affected, but they were none the less. The regulator, who should have been overseeing this, knew what was going on, and the Treasury knew what was going on, but no one took any action. This was hidden because the cost of collapse to the public purse was so immense that this could not be allowed to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), both of whom deserve great credit for the work they have done. My hon. Friend also deserves credit for securing the debate. I would call both of them friends outside this Chamber. They have worked tirelessly on this issue.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East just said, the vast bulk of Equitable Life losers were modest people who had bought in to what successive Governments of all parties had told them was the right thing to do. They were told to save for their retirement, to put something aside, and that they would benefit thereafter. Why did they lose because of catastrophic errors by the company and a catastrophic error of regulation? The Government create the regulator and the regulatory system. The Government, ultimately, must bear the responsibility for that failure. I do not mean that in a partisan sense, but morally they must be prepared to do so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I have hitherto resisted the case for full compensation on the basis of two arguments. One of them was that if the returns were too good to be true, investors ought to have spotted that. However, I have begun to wonder whether that argument is sustainable, because if the benefits were too good to be true, the regulator should have spotted it. This is a regulated market in which ordinary investors ought to have had confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to those who secured the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the victims of the Equitable Life failure.

Equitable Life policyholders have been failed by three bodies. They were failed, first, by the life insurance scheme in which they invested; secondly, by the regulator; and thirdly, by the Government, who have not done enough, although I acknowledge that this Government and the previous Government moved to do something. The point of the debate is that they have a duty to do more for moral reasons, as other hon. Members have said. They should also do more, again as others, particularly the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), have said, in order to underwrite confidence in the financial sector throughout the United Kingdom.

In Edinburgh South West, the financial sector is extremely important. Many of my constituents work in it, and Edinburgh has the second largest financial sector in the UK outwith London. However, quite a number of my constituents are victims of the collapse of Equitable Life and I want to say a little about the personal experiences of two or three.

Others have already dealt more eloquently than I can with the nub of the issue. Basically, it is the shortfall: the difference between the amount in the scheme that the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), created—£1.5 billion—and the total loss, which he admitted was £4.1 billion. There was therefore a difference of £2.6 billion. In the great scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money, especially when we consider it against the principles that should govern such a situation.

The Government initially attempted to exclude all those who took out schemes before 1992. That would have excluded some of the oldest, most vulnerable, and most incapable of making their voice heard. The Government’s sticking plaster on compensation for the pre-1992 scheme holders—an extra £50 million—does not cover the full amounts lost and continues the unfairness to those least likely to be able to continue the fight against the injustice. The Government’s choice—it is a choice; every Government have to choose their priorities—not to compensate fully those who are unlikely to live long enough to provide the sustained pressure necessary to reverse the decision is most unfortunate.

This is not the first time that the Government have failed on compensation or regulation. Like other hon. Members, I have been present in the Chamber for the debate on the losses of investors in the Connaught Income Fund. I have constituents who suffered as a result of that. Of course, there is also the ongoing issue of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Those women invested in their future according to the rules that they understood to apply at the time. During the debate, I have received messages from WASPI women, reminding me to mention them and emphasising that they have suffered a similar injustice to those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life.

I want to say something about the effect on three of my constituents. I will not name them for reasons of personal privacy. I will call them Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. Mr A started to run his own business in his 40s and at that time, he took out three personal pensions with Equitable Life, two for him and one for his wife, who was a partner in the business. When Equitable Life was unable to deliver what it had promised, Mr A and his wife lost their guaranteed annuity rates as the company tried to avoid liquidation. That meant that they were getting only 50% of the rate that the company had guaranteed them. When the coalition Government announced their planned compensation scheme, Mr A expected to be reimbursed to a degree that would at least allow him to lead the sort of life in his old age that he had hoped for when he took the schemes out in the 1980s. However, when he was compensated, he realised he had received only about 4% of the money owed to him. His appeal was successful and was upheld by the independent panel, but the recalculation has never been carried out, despite the strenuous efforts of my predecessor, the previous Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South West.

Mr A still does not have the 50% compensation that he expected to receive, which means that he and his wife have very much had to lower their expectations of old age, and have had to use the equity release scheme to release funds on their home to help them to manage. They would never have expected to have to do that, and indeed had planned against doing so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The second argument I have used to resist full compensation is that we would be requiring taxpayers, many of whom would never have been able to afford such investments, to compensate the annuitants—I accept that the annuitants were also taxpayers. However, the evidence about the modesty of so many annuitants has affected the argument. Equally, I wonder whether it is sustainable to subject justice to a means test.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously thought this through carefully. The conclusions he has come to with his first concern, and the conclusions he is moving towards with his second concern, are very wise. As another hon. Member pointed out, the purpose of having a regulator is to spot when what is promised is not realistic. In a democracy such as ours, with checks and balances and regulators, ordinary investors are entitled to assume that the regulator would say, “This is nonsense and dangerous”, even when a well respected and reputable company had made those promises—these were not fly-by-night investments as far as my constituents were concerned, but investments in a very old and well respected company.

Mr B is quite elderly—he is in his 80s now—and his memory is fading a bit. He was a shopkeeper, which is just the kind of small businessman and entrepreneur that the Conservative Government purport to support. The Scottish National party, too, very much encourages entrepreneurialism and small business—it is in the interests of all of us to encourage entrepreneurialism.

Mr B took out his Equitable Life policy about 40 years ago and has suffered hugely. He told me that, whenever he thinks about what has happened to him and the losses he has sustained, he finds it very hard to describe the pain it makes him feel. He ran a shop in an area of Edinburgh where a lot of his customers were professional people who had also invested in the scheme and told him it was a good thing. He proceeded with all due caution.

Mr B has told people in my office that he is not looking for very much. He wants his rights and his reasonable expectations to be respected. He wanted me to make it very clear today that the current under-compensation underlines his belief that the ideas of trust and bond, which he says used to be so important to investment, seem to have no place in the modern world of financial transactions. It is unfortunate that an elderly gentleman such as Mr B, who has worked so hard all his life in his own business, should have reached that conclusion. He is anxious that, at this stage, late on in his life, if he is unable to pay the debts that the Equitable scheme should have covered for him, he will lose his house—the home where he lives.

The losses of Mr C, another constituent, are substantial —he told me that he believes his losses to be upwards of £200,000. Mr C was a shopkeeper too. He believes that, as he is getting very old, any year could be his last, and that time is quickly running out to find the justice he deserves.

I am making a heartfelt plea to the Minister on behalf of constituents such as Mr A, Mr B and Mr C to look at this again. I wrote to the Chancellor in advance of the last Budget. The Minister was generous in his reply and dealt with matters in detail. I realise that, to a certain extent, his hands are tied, but I make a plea to him to go to the Chancellor to revisit this issue, so that the compensation payments—I use the word “compensation” loosely, as we have discussed—can be considerably increased for all our constituents, but particularly for gentlemen and women in the position of Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. To echo what others have said, it is the right thing to do and the moral thing to do, but it is also in all our interests, because it would increase and underline confidence in the financial sector, which is so important to the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

First, I should like to associate myself with all the comments that Members have made about the dreadful events that occurred yesterday. I send my condolences to the families of those who died and I wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured.

This has been an incredibly thoughtful and considered debate on both sides of the House. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this subject before us today. He has devoted a huge amount of time and commitment to this issue over the years. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) have pursued it doggedly, and I would like to thank them for that. The hon. Member for Harrow East set out the situation clearly today. Words such as “scandal” and “confidence” have been thrown in during interventions, and they sum up the issue for many people. I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the landscape for us today.

I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, who said that there was a moral duty to compensate the hundreds of thousands of people who have been affected over the years. He said that this was a moral issue and a question of trust in the state, and I think that that resonates with many of us. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) reminded us that people had been encouraged to save, and that that was the right thing to do. He said that they should not be dis-benefited as a result of that now. He also talked about the catastrophic regulatory and company errors that were made—I shall say more about that later—and about the alarm bells that were ringing. He said that the Government’s providing the necessary resource would be a gesture of confidence for the public.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) also raised the issue of the failures in the system, and said that the unfairness was continuing. She spoke movingly about her constituents’ experiences, and about the trust that people must have in the system. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about equity, and I think that he probably meant equity not only with only a big E but a small one. He said that the regulations should not only be carried out but be seen to be carried out. He also talked about confidence and trust in the system, and the question of long-term security through confidence in the regulatory process.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is alleged that when Gordon Brown was put under pressure by members of his own party in the early 2000s to compensate the policyholders, he retorted, “These aren’t our people.” Whether that is true or not, would the hon. Gentleman accept that they are very much his people, as indeed they are ours as well?

[Peter Dowd]

I have no doubt whatever that these people are all our people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about cross-party support and about the appropriate action that the Government need to take. He said that policyholders were still being short-changed. He, too, talked about the restoration of trust and confidence in the system, and referred to the WASPI women. He said that the erosion of confidence could cost more in the long run, and that justice delayed was justice denied. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) talked about her now elderly constituents who are in distress, and about the failed and toothless regulatory system. That saga cannot continue. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about his constituency and looked to the Minister for solutions, saying that people are justified in their pursuance of full compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I was going to cover the issue of Icelandic banks later, as might be expected, but there is a big difference between the two. Those ex gratia payments were different from the Equitable Life scheme in that the Government expected to recover, and indeed did recover, all the money paid to UK depositors as the banks were wound up. It is not fair to compare the two.

I will now address some of the specific issues that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that the payments were not transparent. Transparency is one of the core principles of the scheme, and the methodology of calculation was published in full along with a simplified explanation for the layperson. I am also aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury has met EMAG to discuss the matter and found there to be no errors.

My hon. Friend sensibly asked why the Government cannot commit to paying Equitable Life policyholders in full when the economy has fully recovered and the debt starts shrinking, and it is right that the Government balance the needs of affected policyholders against those of taxpayers, and of public service users more generally. The Government have to tackle a debt of nearly £1.7 trillion, or almost £62,000 for every household in this country, which is a salient point. He also said that the cost of paying the pre-1992 annuitants would be less than £100 million. No assessment has been made of the pre-92 losses, but the Government recognised the hardship faced by the group so paid lump sums of up to £10,000, at a cost of around £50 million. That was new money over and above the original £1.5 billion.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), mentioned the failure of regulation and the need to stand behind any failure in a financial services group. It is fair to say that this Government, and the coalition Government before us, have fundamentally reformed financial regulation, including, importantly, through the expansion of the financial services compensation scheme.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East, who has moved places and is confusing me only very slightly, said it was unfair that we excluded pre-92 policyholders. I have every sympathy with the position such policyholders find themselves in during retirement, but the policies commenced before any maladministration could have affected investment decisions. Pre-92 policyholders have instead been affected by falling comparative annuity rates in the light of the issues at Equitable Life. I have already referred to the ex gratia payments of £5,000, or £10,000 for those in receipt of pension credit, that were made in December 2013.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that the Government have not done enough—a point also made by others. I sympathise with the plight of her constituents. I am glad she recognises that the coalition Government did more to address the issue than any Government who preceded them. She asked about the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he was clear in his spring Budget that the scheme is closed and no more money is forthcoming.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made some eloquent points about regulation. I agree that trust is vital, and I am proud of the reforms made to the regulatory system. Many people say we have too many regulations; I always think that financial services are there for everyone so it is important that we provide an appropriate level of protection for everyone, big or small.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) suggested that the Government had ignored the ombudsman’s recommendations. The ombudsman’s report was the foundation of the payment scheme. As I said, the ombudsman subsequently wrote to the all-party group. Whether or not we agree about the term “incompatible”, the ombudsman said that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the 2010 manifesto. It is worth saying that payments were fair to both the taxpayer and policyholders, with the most vulnerable groups receiving 100% of their losses. The whole scheme is based on the ombudsman’s report.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I hate to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but I wish to take him back to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the regulator’s failure to identify problems. My hon. Friend said in response that the Treasury itself was aware of Equitable Life’s problems long before they emerged; does the Minister know whether that is true?

[Simon Kirby]

It is fair to say that there were a lot of issues and that a lot of things were done that we would do differently today. All that was taken into account in the vast number of reports and inquiries, and is now represented in a fair and equitable scheme for payments.

Connaught was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. As I understand it, I will be meeting her in the very near future to discuss that issue, and I am very pleased to do so. The matter is currently being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his understanding. He made a very thoughtful contribution in which he mentioned children. I say to him that we must be careful to strike the right balance and that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with unfair levels of debt. It is about making sure that those people affected receive a fair amount.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) set out cases in which constituents have a reduced annuity in their retirement. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, as I know the difficulties that a reduced income in retirement causes. The Government recognised that, which is why annuitants should receive 100% of their losses.

I will, if I may, finish with some figures, because I need to clear up the confusion. To date, the Government have paid out £1.12 billion. They will be paying out another £355 million, totalling £1.47 billion, leaving a balance, for those who can add up, of £25 million. We intend to provide a safety net to ensure that payments to the most vulnerable are maintained as they live longer—let us hope that they all live longer—and so I do not recognise the £140 million figure that was cited.

In conclusion, I appreciate that some policyholders who have carefully invested for their retirement are now not receiving the income they expected, but we have done more than any other Government to resolve the Government’s part in the Equitable Life issue. We have committed £1.5 billion. We have paid out the £1.12 billion, with more to come, and we have struck the right balance, which is fair to the British taxpayer and supportive to those most vulnerable policyholders.

Money Laundering: British Banks

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Does the commitment expressed in our hosting of the anti-corruption summit not a year ago still exist to drive forward its agenda?

[Simon Kirby]

Absolutely. This Government are fully committed to ensuring that taxpayers are fully protected and that we do all we can to stamp out illegal money laundering activity.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, we will include looking at auto-enrolment in the broader review that we are going to undertake of the differences in treatment between employees and the self-employed, which is clearly a significant area.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I make a germane point of order?

[Mr Speaker]

It is quite a proud and ambitious boast of the right hon. Gentleman that his point of order will be germane. The first thing to establish is that I will exceptionally take points of order now if they flow directly from the matters with which we have just been dealing. Otherwise, they will have to wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot instruct Members on which sentence they should read, but I rather suspect that if Members wish to return to these matters, they may choose to do so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

But it has been heard, and I do not wish further time to be taken up by a Division of the House. Now we must hear the point of order from Sir Desmond Swayne.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a slavish supporter of the Government, I am in some difficulty. My article for the Forest Journal, robustly supporting the Chancellor’s earlier policy, is already with the printer. [Laughter.] Having been persuaded of the correctness of the course that the Chancellor is now following, I merely needed an opportunity to recant. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that, by a wanton abuse of the point of order procedure, he has found his own salvation. We will leave it there for now.

I am glad that the House is in such a good mood, and I am sure that it has an insatiable appetite for the next statement. However, I have just been advised that this might be a convenient moment at which to announce the result of deferred Divisions. We are building up a sense of anticipation for the Secretary of State for International Development.

I have now to announce the result of the day’s deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to social security, the Ayes were 292 and the Noes were 236, so the question was agreed to. In respect of the question relating to the Crown, the Ayes were 464 and the Noes were 56.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Budget Resolutions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I hope that the good humour continues, Mr Speaker, but we will see. I admire the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for his creativity at all times in raising matters.

You and I, Mr Speaker, have watched Budget debates in this Chamber for more than 20 years now. As you probably know, I have referred to the iron law of Budgets: the louder the cheers for the Chancellor on Budget day, the greater the disappointment three days later at the weekend. I am revising that iron law—this Budget did not last three days; it lasted less than three hours.

I will address some of the main policy announcements in the Budget, but I believe that overall the Chancellor’s statement evidenced a fundamental difference between the values of our two parties. What we saw yesterday was a Conservative Chancellor boasting about tax cuts to corporations and the rich while refusing to effectively tackle the crisis in social care for the elderly, refusing to properly fund the NHS, and increasing the national insurance burden on many middle and low-income self-employed earners, while at the same time breaking a clear manifesto promise.

Our values are these: we believe in a fair taxation system, in which everybody, no matter how rich and powerful they may be, pays their way; and we believe that through a fair taxation system and collective endeavour, the elderly and the disabled should be cared for, the sick should be treated and children should be educated to develop their talents to the full. That was not what we saw in yesterday’s Budget statement. In addition, we adhere to manifesto promises.

On the state of the economy, I saw from the Chancellor’s press briefings that all the talk before the Budget was about the aim of providing a positive backdrop for Brexit. That is not the real-world experience of millions of people. Yesterday the Chancellor boasted about economic growth, but what is positive about Britain being the only large developed economy in which wages fell when economic growth returned? What is positive about rising GDP if most people are worse off? What is positive about the national living wage being revised down again? What is positive about yet more downward revisions to wage forecasts?

How can anyone describe an economy as “match fit”, as the Chancellor did, when people in that economy are seeing their standard of living fall and fall again? Wages are still worth less than they were nine years ago. The disposable incomes of non-retired households are less than they were before the financial crisis. The official forecasts are clear: working people, as a result of the Government’s choices and this year’s Budget, will be worse off. According to official forecasts, they will be £500 a year worse off in 2021 than was predicted in the autumn statement. Average earnings are expected to be £200 lower by 2022 than they were before yesterday’s Budget. According to the Resolution Foundation, average earnings are set to return to their pre-crisis peak only by 2022 at best.

The Chancellor claimed in one press release that ours is an economy built on resilience; it is, to be frank, an economy built on sand. The fact that unsecured borrowing by households has shot up to levels not seen since before the financial crisis should be a warning sign to us all. Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show unsecured household lending rising to a shocking 47% of household income by the end of the decade. For many people, such extra borrowing will be done out of desperation—as prices rise but wages fail to keep up, many people dig themselves deeper into debt just to get by. The Chancellor says that he does not want to put the economy on a credit card, but that is exactly what he and his policies are doing—forcing ordinary people into dependence on their credit card.

There is no resilience in an economy that is failing in its fundamentals. Business investment fell over the past year for the first time since the depths of the last recession. Companies are cancelling planned investments because they are so terrified of what the future holds under this Government, particularly with the risk of Brexit. They have seen seven wasted years pass without the investment or industrial strategy that they need from the Government, and they are now fearful of the Government’s plans for Brexit.

Productivity growth—the engine of prosperity—has stagnated. We now lag far behind similar economies. A typical British worker takes five days to produce what their German or French counterpart produces in four. The Chancellor, in a moment of lucidity, recognised the scale of the problem, but he failed to provide any new funding to deal with it. Worse than that, public sector investment will be £2.3 billion less over the next five years than was planned in the autumn statement.

Yes, people celebrated International Women’s Day, but while there were calls for a Budget that works for women, they have been ignored. Women are still bearing the brunt of this Tory Government’s failed austerity agenda, with 86% of cuts falling on women—that figure is unchanged since last year—and the Government have yet again ignored the hundreds of WASPI women who turned up yesterday to lobby Parliament. Things are just as bad as ever for women under this Government. Labour calls on the Government to publish urgently an analysis of the true impact on women of their Budgets and spending announcements, and to explain how they intend to reverse this disproportionate impact. Under a Labour Government, all economic policies will be gender-audited to ensure that we have an economy that works for all.

Let me turn to some of the policy announcements in the Budget, such as on self-employment. The Chancellor’s decision to push a £2 billion tax rise on to low and middle earners who are self-employed makes little sense.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I would be the first to say that we need to find new ways to reward entrepreneurs and risk takers in our tax system, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the difficulty is that at present there is no way of distinguishing between such a person and a professional such as a journalist who has sought an arrangement with their editor to be paid as self-employed? On the low-paid, 60% of people who are self-employed will see a reduction if we take into account the change in class 2 contributions.

[John McDonnell]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about bogus self-employment. We thought that the Chancellor might have mentioned that in his statement, but he never referred to it. That needs to be addressed, because many people are forced or manipulated into self-employment. Bogus self-employment needs to be tackled, and we have campaigned for that along with a number of organisations, including several trade unions and the Federation of Small Businesses.

We saw middle and low earners hit yesterday. Someone on £20,000 will lose about £250 a year, while someone on £40,000 will lose nearly £650 a year—those are the consequences. I do not think that those people are high earners; they are middle to low earners. They should be protected, particularly at a time when, to be honest, there is frailty in the economy, with consumer spending just dipping on the latest figures. Those at the forefront of the impact of the dip in consumer spending are largely existing sole traders and small traders—the window cleaners, drivers and others—and they will be hit. The policy is wrong, and this is also the wrong time to put their careers and jobs in jeopardy.

The justification for yesterday’s policy just does not stand up. The Government cannot demand more taxes from people without offering something in return. The Labour party are fully behind looking at how the labour market is changing—the right hon. Gentleman is right about that—and the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), spoke last year about the principles that should guide such changes. We have regularly raised the problem of bogus self-employment.

Leaving the EU: Financial Services

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point and I will come on to the issue of passporting later. I believe that businesses really want certainty, which is why it is right that hon. Members raise issues in the House.

In my own fabulous city of Leicester, almost 7,000 people are employed in financial and professional services, including by HSBC, Santander and Hastings Direct. Those people are not the extremely wealthy bankers or hedge fund managers that we often read about in the papers. They are ordinary people on modest wages who work in customer services, call centres and office administration, and who pay their taxes and spend their money in the local community.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I do not want to diminish the importance of the financial sector, particular that which operates and needs to continue to operate in Europe, but overwhelmingly domestic financial services have no involvement with the continent at all. Their export potential is virtually nil, in the words of the Commission itself. To what extent does the impressive list of employees that the hon. Lady has given divide between those that are involved entirely in the domestic market and those that are involved in transactions overseas?

[Liz Kendall]

The businesses in my constituency and those that I have talked about so far are deeply concerned about losing their membership of the single market and their passporting rights. I care about those jobs and the contribution that those companies make to our economy. It is right for us to raise questions, and it would be wrong to suggest that leaving the European Union does not give rise to serious concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important issue. As he will know, the European Central Bank has already had one go at trying to prevent euro-denominated clearing from taking place in the UK, and it is no doubt a very iconic issue for many of our European partners. It is an important part of the overall financial structure in London and it is not easily separated from the other activities that operate in London, but in terms of the jobs and value attached to it, it is a relatively small part of the total.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T4. What is the Chancellor planning to do with Bradford & Bingley’s assets?

[Mr Hammond]

Following the announcement at Budget 2016, UK Asset Resolution Limited has launched a programme of sales of the Bradford & Bingley mortgage assets that it holds. That will be designed to raise sufficient proceeds to repay the £15.65 billion debt to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and, in turn, the corresponding loan from the Treasury. It is expected, subject to market conditions and ensuring value for money, that this programme of sales will have been concluded in full by the end of 2017-18.

Sale of Annuities

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not interrupt the Minister in his flow, but may I ask that from now on we avoid the use of the word “disingenuous” or “disingenuously”? There is an imputation of dishonour and we should avoid that. The Minister is a dextrous fellow with, I am sure, an extensive vocabulary and he can deploy some other term to get his point across. On the subject of those with dexterity and great vocabulary, I call Sir Desmond Swayne.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It is the right decision for the circumstances, but does my hon. Friend think that there is any connection between poor value in the annuities market and the Bank of England’s monetary policy?

[Simon Kirby]

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge your sound advice, as ever, and apologise if I have been anything other than my usually well-behaved self.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) raises an interesting point, but this is about people, many of whom are older and more vulnerable, making the right choices, and the Government making sure that the market is there to support them. That is not the case, which is why we have changed tack.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s point on gender balance, may I help the hon. Gentleman by saying that, among the hereditary peers, there are currently 91 men and one woman?

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The new creations are exactly the savvy sort of people that we should have in the House of Lords. However, the reason why we are in this position of an unreformed House of Lords is that there was insufficient consensus in this place on how to replace it. Is he going to set out his plan for the other place?

[Pete Wishart]

If anything, that sounds like a manifesto from the right hon. Gentleman to get himself a good place in the House of Lords, and I wish him all the best in that ambition.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for mentioning the hereditaries, because that brings me on to my next point. Although the new appointees are bad enough, there are some other cracking undemocratic horrors skulking in the corridors down the road. They are the aristocrats, the 91 Members of Parliament who have the opportunity to design, fashion, shape, issue and supervise our laws because of birthright—because they are the first son of a family that won a decisive battle in the middle ages. The one thing I do like about the hereditaries is that they bring an element of democracy to the House of Lords—did Members know that? It is the surreal and bizarre contest that they have when one of their number dies. The earls, the counts, the barons, the lords and the ladies of the land get together to replenish their numbers. It is the weirdest electorate in the world. It may be the poshest and most exclusive electorate that can be found anywhere, but at least there is that element of democracy in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

If the hon. Gentleman looked at the statistics on trade unionists, he would find that appointments by the former Prime Minister were completely different.

The bloated Lords now has over 800 Members and leaves the UK noticeably as the only bicameral country in the world where the second Chamber is larger than the first. Indeed, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the only Chamber that is bigger is the national assembly of China. It is an absolute outrage. Let us be honest about it: we are a laughing stock in this regard. It is worth remembering, of course, that China’s population is 28 times the size of the United Kingdom’s.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I think that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House may have misremembered. It was not that there was no consensus; there was a Bill on which we all agreed, or which certainly had the support of the House, but it was the hon. Gentleman’s party that withdrew support for the programme motion. We could have had a reformed House of Lords, had it not been for the machinations of the Labour party.

[Ian Lavery]

I think there is more to the history of that than blaming the Labour party. I think it was the coalition Government that suffered a slight hiccup in their relationship at that point.

While what I have described was clearly bad enough, it came at the same time as the Government sought to reduce the number of elected Members of Parliament from 650 to 600. That was done under the guise of making politics cheaper, but it barely scraped the surface of the additional costs of the unelected Lords. Just where is the logic in reducing the size of the democratically elected Commons? If we want consensus, we can all agree to abolish the Boundary Commission review. We are being asked for consensus by the Minister, and that is fine, but if we want consensus in relation to certain issues, we should have consensus in relation to democracy. That is simple.

During the last Parliament, the attempt to rig democracy in favour of continuous Conservative control failed only because the Conservatives’ coalition partners, the threatened Liberal Democrats, rebelled—a point that I made to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). They did not rebel over the much trumpeted 2010 anti-austerity policies. They were not terribly interested in opposing in-year spending cuts, increased tuition fees, or even the fundamentally illiberal “gagging Bill”. The truth is that the Liberal Democrats spat out the proverbial dummy because of the Government’s failure to back their poor compromise on reform of the Lords, which they themselves sought to stuff with their own peers. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Absolutely. I was waiting for an intervention then, but, looking around the Chamber, I see that there is no one from the Liberal Democrats here to intervene.

The coalition agreement on Lords appointments would have meant an additional 186 peers, costing an estimated £24 million. All of them would have been Liberal Democrats or Conservatives. Interestingly, the Dissolution honours list contained more Liberal Democrats than their current parliamentary cohort. I hear people say that that is not hard to achieve, but it is nevertheless an important point.

Although the Liberal Democrat rebellion scuppered the 2013 review, the legislation was never repealed, and the unfettered Conservative Government have returned to the task. Their proposals to redraw constituency boundaries are grossly unfair, unjust, undemocratic and wholly unacceptable. They are based on an out-of-date version of the electoral register with nearly 2 million voters missing, a disproportionately high number of whom are transient and poorer voters: students, and families forced to move as a result of changes in the benefit system. The changes fail to take any account of the myriad bits of additional work that the vote to leave the European Union and a return of powers would bring.

Tax Credits: Concentrix

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I have cases of women who have had their tax credits stopped because, they have been told, they are living with a man of whom they have never heard or, indeed, with the tenant of the property prior to them occupying it. Their benefits have been withdrawn. I am not sure that I need advice tomorrow morning in 1 Parliament Street—when, incidentally, the House is sitting. We need to know how quickly those cases can be reviewed.

[Jane Ellison]

I quite understand my right hon. Friend’s point. The drop-in is there as a facility should Members wish to use it, but it is not an alternative to the HMRC lines already in place. We encourage anyone affected to call the HMRC number on the letters they have received. We are putting significant additional resources into those helplines, with immediate effect, to make sure we can resolve the situation. I am reassured—although obviously I will be talking to HMRC consistently about this—that as soon as the facts of a case are resolved we can get money into people’s accounts in a short number of days.

Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

Mr Swayne, do you wish to make a short statement?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

Mr Leigh, I had not realised that the statement was voluntary. Had I done so, I might have chosen not to make a statement. However, on the basis that I have prepared one, it is probably best if I deliver it.

[The Chair]

Make it snappy!

[Mr Swayne]

I will endeavour to do so.

The issue is of enormous importance to DFID, given that 11% of our official development aid is spent through the EU institutions. It is vital that we ensure it is spent well and according to our own priorities and objectives, to which end we employ 19 officials between Abercrombie House in East Kilbride and No. 22 Whitehall to ensure that that is the case, and we deploy 26 officials as secondees to the European institutions directly. Their main effort is to ensure that the EU’s priorities align with ours and that their procedures and standards reflect ours.

I come to these debates with a certain prejudice. When people complain to me about the unsatisfactory nature of European institutions, I am inclined to say, “Not me, guv. I voted no in 1975.” Nevertheless, notwithstanding such prejudices, I have been impressed by the quality of European aid delivered by the European institutions. What is more, when overseas in some of the countries in which we operate, I find that humanitarian staff are equally complimentary of the quality of European aid. Having read the documents, which are not a particularly good read, it seems that the EU is delivering high-quality aid in spite of lapses in some of its management systems. It is vital that we get on top of that, so that those management systems do not begin to undermine the quality of European aid.

We are concentrating on various aspects of the EU’s procedures. Members of the Committee may remember that we focused last year on the results framework and how results are calculated. We are currently working on a review of procurement and counter-fraud policies. There is an element of frustration in dealing with the reports, because the Committee will appreciate that we made all sorts of observations and criticisms last year that we would expect to be taken into account, but the period covered by the report precedes the criticisms that we made last year, so there is an element of catch-up. It will take time for our observations and demands to be reflected in the reports that we see before us.

As for the development funds, I expect that the auditors will be quietly confident that the appropriate level of seriousness is being attached to the criticisms that were made, but there is an elephant in the room, namely, the European Parliament’s report of some two weeks ago, which made headlines in The Times in London. It reported that half of EU aid is wasted, more specifically that 53% of €20 billion will not be deployed and will not deliver the intended effects.

However, as Field Marshal William Slim used to observe, nothing is ever as bad as first reported. It turns out that it was a report not of the European Parliament but of a Member of the European Parliament who had access to an external assistance management report that was published on the European Parliament website in what I would call a rather unnecessary and unwise fashion. We would not publish live management documents of that sort. Some Members may recall the arguments in the previous Parliament over just such a management document: the risk register. This document is a risk register, on which officials would be expected to record everything that could possibly go wrong unless steps are taken to prevent it from going wrong. The document’s purpose is to ensure that action is taken to prevent that.

Nevertheless, the document has been used to draw up the criticisms that were made, in particular that it will take some 27.5 years to disburse the commitments that have already been made to development projects. That shows the limitations of using a management document that is a snapshot. There will be always be points in a development cycle when more will have been pledged than has actually been deployed and disbursed, particularly in a humanitarian environment such as we have at the moment, with huge crises in Syria, Yemen and South Sudan. Large amounts may have been pledged, but not actually disbursed. I would be more concerned about criticism that we were shovelling money out of the door rather too fast in order to meet commitments, rather than dealing with them proportionately. Typically, a European project lasts some four years, which is to be expected in the circumstances.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors judged that the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of controls have not been demonstrated and it is therefore important that an action plan to deal with that is put in place. That action plan involves intensive management training to ensure that officials comply with the rules, and the deployment of new financial tools to ensure that they are complied with.

In 2011, the financial resource management estimate that we made for the European Union in our own multilateral aid review was that it was actually very good. We have to see this report in that context, but it is vital that this is got right, because one of the most corrosive things in relation to international development is the undermining of public confidence in our commitment through people being told that the money is wasted. Therefore, we have to deal with these issues to ensure that there is no question of that arising.

[The Chair]

We now have question time. Who wishes to kick off?

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. May I say I admire how you have generated such a beautiful gender balance on the bench beside you?

I have two questions, if I may. My first is for the Minister of State. I am interested in this issue because I have spent much of my life in parts of the developing world and on aid projects. I have a very precise question, but, by way of a short preamble, I have a lot of sympathy with those who are at times critical of agencies that operate internationally. At one stage in my life I was in Yemen to look at a college built with World Bank money and with United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation development. My terms of reference were simple: we have built this building, now tell us what to do with it. It was not necessarily the best project that had been set up. The Minister mentioned the recent report, published on the EU website, on the amount of money wasted. He said that in his and the Government’s view, the report was “very good”. Will he explain precisely what “very good” is?

[Mr Swayne]

I was referring to the multilateral aid review that we carry out periodically. The last update was in 2011. We assess the effectiveness of all the multilateral organisations through which we operate as a prelude to deciding on what terms we are prepared to continue using them as development partners. The EU institutions are part of that review. Specifically, we judged their financial controls and their effectiveness in deploying the finance that they are given to deliver projects on the ground to be very good. I said that to counter the criticism set out a couple of weeks ago that they are too slow and that it will be 27.5 years before they can deploy the finance that they have been given. That is a snapshot, or the use of a management tool to draw a wholly inappropriate conclusion.

[Roger Mullin]

My supplementary to the Financial Secretary is also about the international aspects of fraud. Many projects funded through the European Union require multinational partnerships. I am aware that some fraud has occurred in more than one member state. Does he have a general view of how the UK compares with other EU member states on multinational projects?

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Like so many others, I want to say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I confess to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I have not read these documents cover to cover.

[Mr Swayne]

Shocking!

[Stephen Hammond]

It is indeed shocking, although I thought it would be more useful to spend my weekend trying to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is elected in May.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that it is shocking that this is the 21st year in which the accounts have not been properly audited and signed off. That would not be acceptable in the financial world. With my financial hat on, I read three of the chapters, and I would like to test something with the Financial Secretary. Chapter 3 is about getting results from the EU budget. The common themes include poor performance setting, poor planning and objectives that are not fit for management purposes. My hon. Friend will have noticed that it states that budgetary strategy is not aligned with political strategy, which is an explicit criticism of the inability to make proper financial judgments.

Hidden in the documents—the Commission did not even bother to reply—is paragraph 3.79, which gets to the heart of the lack of results in partnership arrangements. I would like to hear from my hon. Friend exactly how the Government will put pressure on the Commission to respond with more a bit more force than its bland statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

I have a question for the Minister of State. In her explanatory memorandum dated 10 December, Baroness Verma, the Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development, pointed out that the European development fund is the European Union’s main development co-operation instrument and that the total budget for it in 2014 was £34.5 billion. She also said that about 15% of that came from the United Kingdom. I say “about 15%”, because in paragraph 2 she says it was 14.68% and in paragraph 21, on page 391 of the bundle, she says it was 14.82%—it is about 15%. The Minister of State referred to 11% of DFID’s budget being spent via the European Union. Could he say briefly what the process is for deciding the percentage of DFID’s budget that is spent via the European Union?

[Mr Swayne]

The fact that 11% of our overseas development aid goes via the European Union is not inconsistent with the fact that 15% of what the European Union spends is accounted for by us. I am not quite sure how that works out mathematically, but I am confident that it is true. The issue of how much is spent—how much comes from us—is an assessment of our share of the European budget. My understanding is that that works on the same basis—[Interruption.] The seventh cavalry has arrived. The ratio of UK funds to the EDF is determined by our gross national income at the beginning of the period. Well, there it is.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have one or two questions for the Minister of State. I have attended many such European Committee debates over the past 19 years. There have been concerns in the past about the allocation of aid by the European Union, including that it is less efficient and less well-directed than British Government aid, but the Minister seems to suggest that that is no longer the case. There were two specific accusations: that the aid was not directed to those most in need—the poorest countries, such as sub-Saharan Africa—and that there was a bias towards the better-off Francophone countries around the Mediterranean. Can the Minister tell us whether that matter has been addressed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swayne]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that he has experienced these Committees over a number of years. I wonder if it has occurred to him that there is at least a possibility that this might be the last such feast he has to attend, depending, of course, on a democratic process somewhat down the road. Nevertheless, with respect to the substantive issue he raises, I am certainly alive to that concern. I came to this role with a whole series of prejudices that have largely been dispelled in respect of the quality of aid delivered by the EU institutions.

[Rob Marris]

You might vote yes.

[Mr Swayne]

There are other priorities.

Given that we spend 11% of our official development aid through the EU institutions, it is important that they reflect our priorities, including that of concentrating on the poorest, rather than on those groups mentioned by the hon. Member for Luton North. I am confident that we have been moving the European Union much more significantly in that direction. I am also satisfied with the progress of the reform programme, certainly in respect of gender—I think we have scored highly on moving the goalposts towards where we want to be.

[The Chair]

If no more Members wish to ask questions we will proceed to the debate on the motion. I call the Minister to move the motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11470/15 and Addenda 1 to 6, a Commission Report: Protection of the European Union’s financial interests—Fight against fraud 2014 Annual Report, and unnumbered European Union Documents, the European Court of Auditors’ 2014 Annual Reports on the implementation of the budget and on the activities funded by the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th European Development Funds; agrees that budgetary discipline and robust financial management at all levels remains crucial, and that EU taxpayers must have confidence that their funds are being effectively managed and implemented at an EU level; expresses disappointment that the error rate for EU budget payments shows only a slight improvement on last year; supports the Government’s efforts to continue to engage with the Commission and Member States to drive improvements to reduce the error rate, in particular, advancing the simplification agenda; stresses the importance of the EU budget achieving results as well as being compliant; and presses the Commission for a clear action plan to address the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations relating to the European Development Fund in order to improve its error rate.—(Mr Gauke).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for his warm words of appreciation. He brings an amiability to his role as the Member of Parliament for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath that is perhaps unprecedented.

[Mr Swayne]

In recent times.

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed.

I thank the hon. Members for Luton North and for Wolverhampton South West for their questions, which I will attempt to address. I also thank other hon. Members who participated in the debate.

As the Committee is aware, the Government have taken an increasingly robust stance on financial management. Although the estimated European Court of Auditors 4.4% error rate from the 2014 EU budget shows a slight improvement in the estimated level of error, it is a marginal reduction from the 4.5% error rate in the previous year and remains well above the ECA’s acceptable threshold of 2%.

We want to see more ambition and progress in the area, so, as I confirmed earlier, the Government will vote against discharge of the 2014 EU budget at this month’s ECOFIN. That is the most public way for member states to take a tough stance on financial management and the Government continue to make that stand for UK taxpayers. None the less, we welcome the efforts of Vice-President Georgieva to manage the budget better and to focus on performance. The UK is taking a proactive role in driving that agenda forward.

The hon. Member for Luton North asked about the difference between fraud and error, which was touched on by his Front-Bench colleague. Fraud is the deliberate criminal misuse of EU funds. Financial errors are breaches of often complex EU regulations. Of course, the Government take a zero-tolerance approach to fraud. As I said earlier, only an estimated 0.02% of EU payments are established as fraudulent, according to Commission data. The “Fight against fraud 2014 Annual Report” shows that, across the EU, cases of suspected or potential fraud affected around 0.26% of EU payments and 0.8% of EU revenues. Of these, Commission estimates suggest that around 8% are likely to go on to be established as actual fraud. So I do not think we should consider that that 4.4% is all fraud.