Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

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

T3. As we are congratulating football teams, I am sure the House will want to join me in congratulating Hibernian football club, which has returned to the top league in Scotland.The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a brass neck when he talks about a stable and resilient economy. The growth in the money supply, which has been trending at around 6%, is mainly down to an increase in personal borrowing and credit card debt. When are we going to get fiscal measures that will stimulate the economy, rather than relying on the boom and bust we are seeing again?

[Mr Hammond]

I can confidently predict for the hon. Gentleman that, after the general election on 8 June, there will be a Budget that will give him the answers he is seeking.

UK Sovereign Wealth Fund

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on securing the debate and raising this most important topic. He asked whether there could be consensus across the House. There are those of us on this side who have been arguing for infrastructure investment for quite some time, for the simple reason that we need to build capacity in the economy—we need to create the circumstances for growth.

We all want a high-wage economy; we would absolutely welcome that. The debate is about the mechanisms that will create it. We make the point that if we want to deliver a balanced budget in this country, that has to come through the delivery of economic growth; it cannot come on the backs of the poor, as has been the case over the last few years because of austerity. The issue has to be about building capacity in the economy, creating the circumstances for growth, which perhaps can deliver the kind of outcomes that the hon. Gentleman talks about.

I am delighted that we are having this debate, but in some senses it is happening too late for us in Scotland. As the House of Commons Library briefing paper confirms, more than 30 countries have sovereign wealth funds, and it is estimated that funds based on oil and gas receipts are responsible for more than half the global total value of those funds. We in the Scottish National party have long argued that we should have established a wealth fund from our oil revenues to ensure that future generations could benefit from the proceeds of North sea oil. Not for the first time, and over a long time, Westminster was not listening.

The UK Government have taken a staggering £340 billion in tax receipts from North sea oil. Where has that gone? Why have we not seen a legacy from that bounty for all the people in this country? It was not invested to ensure that there was a legacy for future generations. Rather than North sea oil receipts being looked at as a bounty that could be invested to ensure that there was future growth, the proceeds of North sea oil were frittered away.

Let us contrast the UK’s lack of foresight with the foresight of our near neighbours in Norway. Norway’s wealth fund, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, now exceeds $905 billion; the value is $177,000 per capita—for each Norwegian citizen. That astonishing sum shows what can be done if people take the right approach to investing in their future. The Norwegians recognised that oil was a bonus. It will run out at some point, but they ensured that their country would have a lasting benefit. Let me quote what The Economist said in an article in September this year:

“Two decades after Norway’s government paid a first deposit into its sovereign-wealth fund, the country is learning how to manage a behemoth. The vehicle, which is used to invest abroad the proceeds of Norway’s oil and gas sales, has amassed a bigger fortune than anyone expected, thanks to bumper oil prices.”

The hon. Gentleman has talked about a wealth fund that may build up over generations, but Norway has achieved the largest wealth fund in the world after two decades because it was prepared to put something away for future generations. In that sense, I support the broad outline of what he says. The article goes on:

“As the direct benefits of oil decline—around 46% of Norway’s expected total haul of oil and gas is gone—the relative importance of the fund will grow. The annual revenues it generates now regularly exceed income from oil sales.”

Establishing a wealth fund from the benefits of North sea oil receipts is an effective means of protecting an economy from oil prices that can prove to be volatile. In that sense, the lucrative revenue generated by oil and gas is used to protect its own longevity as well as the overall prosperity and stability of an economy during price swings. We have known all that for decades.

The McCrone report, delivered to the UK Cabinet Office in 1974, claimed that North sea oil revenues could have made an independent Scotland as economically prosperous as Switzerland. The report was so alarming for the UK Government that it was buried as top secret for 30 years. That is, perhaps, of little wonder. Scotland’s bounty has kept the UK afloat; there is no lasting financial legacy for Scotland. The Norwegians have a foundation of financial security; we have a UK Government who would not come clean on the benefits of North sea oil and have denied us the opportunity to have our own legacy from that bounty. Yes, let us plan for a sovereign wealth fund, but that should have been delivered over the past few decades.

Denis Healey said the following about the saga:

“I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of”

Scottish

“nationalism”.

He said he thought that Westminster politicians

“are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.”

That is the reality, yet we are constantly told by Westminster politicians about the perils of Scottish independence and that we cannot afford to take responsibility for our own destiny. If we had this oil fund, that would give us the tools to manage any financial storms like those we have witnessed over the past few years.

Denis Healey let the cat out of the bag; it was a worry that the wealth of Scotland could create this oil fund and undermine the significance of Westminster. McCrone suggested way back in the 1970s that an oil fund should be set up, but here we are in 2016 asking why we have not done so.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

There is an emerging consensus about the need to think long term in regard to the wealth fund. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some people will listen to his comments about an oil fund, which would, by its nature, have a very limited lifespan—the oil is going to run out at some stage in the near future—and think we need to think beyond that lifespan? We need to be talking about a generational expectation rather than a general election expectation.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree, in so far as we have to establish the mechanisms to make sure that we have something left for future generations and the issue is not just about oil. What I want to do in this debate is talk about the missed opportunities and how we can learn from them.

I will come specifically to how we can deal with not only the financial crisis but the decline in oil prices over the past few years. We cannot run away from the fact. We know that oil prices are depressed at the moment and that revenues from North sea oil have declined alarmingly, and that that will remain the case for the next couple of years. However, there is still the value of 2 billion barrels of oil in the ground under the North sea, and at some point oil prices will recover: there will still be the opportunity to create that oil fund out of the North sea oil revenues.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

In the words of Oasis, the hon. Gentleman is looking back in anger. I understand, given his political perspective, why he is doing that. Might I encourage him to look forward and to think about how we might establish a sovereign wealth fund going forward? Has he had the chance—assiduous politician as he most definitely is—to reflect on the Co-op party proposal, which envisages turning the Crown Estate into the beginnings of a UK sovereign wealth fund?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind remarks. We need to make sure that people in this country can benefit from the wealth that is created. It is a reasonable contribution to the debate to consider what should happen with the Crown Estate.

I would actually take things a stage further because I want to see the benefits of the Crown Estate come down to our communities. There is considerable value generated by the Crown Estate in the highlands and islands of Scotland and we have seen none of the direct benefit of that. Of course some of that will be devolved to the Scottish Government over the coming years, but I do not want the assets of the Crown Estate to sit in a fund, whether that be in London or in Edinburgh; I want my communities in the highlands and islands to benefit directly from it.

There is a bounty that will no doubt come from offshore wind over the course of the next few generations, and I want to take that opportunity to make sure that its benefits and bounty are reinvested back into the highlands and islands, so that we can broaden the base of sustainable economic growth. I agree with the broad direction of travel that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I would do it in a slightly different way to make sure that our local communities get direct benefit from the bounty of the Crown Estates.

I know that many other Members want to speak, so I will move on quickly. We have long argued that to take account of the volatility of North sea oil, we have to establish not just one, but two, funds as and when circumstances permit: a stability fund and a savings fund. Why a stability fund? It is an implicit recognition of the volatility of commodity pricing and a desire to set a cautious budget that would allow excess tax receipts generated in periods of high oil prices to be released for current spending at a time of price weakness. That would create stability of revenue sources for Government spending and protect the economy from price shocks.

Secondly, a long-term savings fund would, as is the case in the 30 countries that have established such funds, have a long-term legacy for future generations. A lack of vision and a focus on only the short-term have seen the UK consistently refuse to do that. If we are now seeing an emerging consensus challenging that, I will be delighted.

Although I welcome this debate and the initiative of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, what he argues for is simply not going to happen in the short term given the state of the UK’s finances today. We need to make sure that in Scotland, as circumstances dictate, we can return to this as a solution for us all.

In the short term, maximising the potential for the North sea and west of Shetland must be a priority. The fiscal and regulatory regime must therefore support ongoing investment, so that we can continue to benefit from the oil that is still there to sustain jobs and our future prosperity. We have taken a substantial bounty from the North sea. Now is not the right time to establish a wealth fund; now is the time to put in place mechanisms that will support the industry, development and the ability to extract longer-term value and, of course, taxation revenue.

Just as those in Westminster sat on their hands when an oil fund should have been established, they have now been slow to respond to the weakness in oil and gas prices. Inaction has impacted the ability to maximise recovery in the industry. Today, the priority is to support this industry with an eye on creating the circumstances that will allow us to return to the needs of establishing an oil fund. For us, recovery in the oil industry and in tax revenues goes hand in hand with a transition to a green economy. It is part of a holistic approach that recognises that we need to adapt to a new, low-carbon economy.

I say yes to a sovereign wealth fund, but as part of a wider strategy. It is just a pity that we have missed so many opportunities and that, in the meantime, Scotland has missed out.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always nice to be called to speak, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on setting the scene on a subject that has to be discussed and given some thought in this House. Those of us here, and those who unfortunately have not been able to make it, will have ideas about how to do this. This is the first stage of a discussion that we should, perhaps, have had many years ago. At least we are starting the process; let us start it with this discussion. I look forward to the shadow Minister’s contribution, other Members’ contributions and, in particular, the Minister’s response on how to take this forward.

We are considering the proposals put on paper by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in his report, “The Great Rebalancing: A sovereign wealth fund to make the UK’s economy the strongest in the G20”. That is a very grand title, but it encapsulates his thoughts on the subject—and, perhaps, our thoughts as well. An enormous level of thought and groundwork went into these proposals. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the paper, which we read—not just the background notes—back home, and it gave us food for thought. I am astonished that he found the time to do so much work on it. Anyone who takes the time to read the background notes will understand the time that he has put into writing this paper, which is worthy of discussion in the House, and in Westminster Hall today.

I was raised to save for a rainy day, as many in my generation were—and that is not just because I am an Ulster Scot and we think that every pound is a prisoner. I was taught to save for a rainy day at an early age by my mother and father, and it has not done me any harm over the years. I am now married, of course, and the money is never my own anymore; it belongs to her, but that is by the bye. I do not wish to dumb down in any way the hard work of the hon. Gentleman, but to me this is like the Government saving for a rainy day, as I said to him when discussing the debate beforehand. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who spoke before me, is a strong advocate for the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women and their pensions, and I am glad he is here. Before I came in, I thought, “What if we had had this fund 20 years ago? We would have been able to look after the WASPI women and make sure their pensions were covered.” We did not, but at least we have chance to look at this issue now.

[Ian Blackford]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a number of pertinent remarks. There is a view that we do not have the resources to pay the appropriate pensions to people, but we should keep an eye on the Government Actuary’s Department, which has argued—I am keen that people should not get away from this—that the national insurance fund will be in surplus to the tune of about £30 billion by 2016-17. The resources are there to give the women what they are due, and over the next 20 or 30 years, pensions will remain affordable.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those figures. I was not aware of them, but if that money is available, perhaps we are in a position to start the fund today with some of those resources.

I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, will know of 63-year-old women in their constituency who still have to work as their pension is unavailable. Those women are wishing that in the 1980s, at the time of the North sea oil find, which we have heard many comments about, the Government had decided to invest in a rainy day fund, which could have helped the pension pot. For that reason, the sovereign wealth fund must be considered seriously by the Government. That is why this matter is worthy of debate.

This issue is not cut and dried, by any means. There is talk of the Government’s shale fund being similar to this plan, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned, but this is not the day to debate the pluses and minuses of fracking. A lot of hard work would need to be carried out before the fund saw any profit, but many people are already making claims about the potential for shale oil, if that comes through—and I suspect that, at some time, it will. We must think about what can be done for the future benefit of all people in the UK. Today’s austerity is a reality for us all. We have to be honest in this House about moneys and finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I begin in time-honoured fashion by thanking the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing this debate. I say that genuinely because we do not get enough chance to think long term or to debate issues in detail, and this is a practical issue on which to do so.

This has been a limited debate, and I begin my summing up by agreeing with many of the hon. Gentleman’s reasons for having some kind of sovereign wealth fund. In the current context, the most important reason is that a sovereign wealth fund would provide inter-generational justice. There have been discussions about a UK sovereign wealth fund since the 1970s; the issue has come and gone. There have been many arguments for a sovereign wealth fund and, in the ’70s, the North sea oil money had arrived and we needed to do something sensible with it.

Such reasons are episodic. On both sides of the House, we have all come to understand that inter-generational fairness is an issue. Successive generations have repeatedly used up available funds, often making a mess of the economic situation, and left it to future generations to pick up the pieces, as the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign is at the moment.

In the absence of any inter-generational mechanism for creating such fairness, we have to consider some kind of sovereign wealth fund. The Government are on record as seeking some form of inter-generational justice, and this is the only mechanism currently under discussion that has any chance of success. Without prejudging how we do it, a sovereign wealth fund is worthy of discussion because it exactly fits the kind of programme that the Government have suggested.

The hon. Gentleman did not examine in any great detail the other argument for some kind of sovereign wealth fund. During a periodic economic crisis, a sovereign wealth fund, provided we do not touch the capital, would give us an emergency revenue stream that can be put to use without unbalancing the broader fiscal mix. Since 2008, at the same time as building up the equity base of their sovereign wealth fund, the Norwegians have been able to tap some of the income stream temporarily, to offset lower tax revenues as a result of the global economic crisis. Again, that would seem to recommend itself to the Treasury.

[Ian Blackford]

I applaud what Norway has done, but one of the weaknesses of the Norwegian model is that it invests primarily in equities and bonds. If we get this right, there is an opportunity to invest in infrastructure. My hon. Friend is right that we should draw down only on the income streams, but there is a real opportunity to invest in infrastructure to build capacity and growth opportunities, as well as investing in financial assets.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing this debate today. The issues it raises go to the heart of the Government’s economic approach, which is to get our finances in order and to build for the long term-success of the country. I read with great interest my hon. Friend’s paper, produced with the Social Market Foundation; I might indeed consider purchasing it as a small Christmas gift. The objectives that informed his paper are all ones that I share, along with Members on both sides of the House, I am sure: to see the UK’s economy strengthen and grow sustainably in the future.

Let me start by addressing the idea of sovereign wealth funds more generally, because I agree that they can form an important part of any country’s strategy for investing in its future success. Often, they are a way for Governments to manage fiscal surpluses, foreign currency operations or balance of payments surpluses. They can indeed be an effective tool for both planning sustainable investment and managing volatility in receipts. We have seen how they can work well for countries that have large fiscal surpluses. Hon. Members have mentioned Norway’s Government pension fund; there is also Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency’s foreign holdings fund.

However, we are not debating today the valuable role that sovereign wealth funds play in other countries around the world; we are considering whether such a fund would be appropriate for the UK, and—importantly—appropriate at this time. As the House is fully aware, we are not in the same position as many other countries that have elected to set up such funds. The crucial point is that the UK has not run a surplus since the start of this century, although we are now committed to doing so.

We have chosen the path of a credible fiscal policy that will restore our economy for long-term health, and although we are no longer seeking to deliver that surplus in 2019-20, we remain resolved to do so, to bring our public finances into balance. That is why we have committed once again in the autumn statement to deliver the surplus: we set out our plan to make that happen as soon as possible in the next Parliament, while in the interim bringing cyclically adjusted borrowing below 2% by the end of this Parliament, and getting public sector net debt, as a share of GDP, to fall in this Parliament, too.

I share my hon. Friend’s conviction about the need for strong and sustainable public finances for the UK and I understand his interest in exploring the potential for a British sovereign wealth fund. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the country should be prepared for a rainy day—sensible advice that we should all listen to. However, given that UK debt will soon be at a 50-year high of 90.2% of GDP, our priority must be to return the public finances to balance and to get the debt falling before we can consider a sovereign wealth fund in more detail. However, although such a fund may not be an appropriate avenue for us to explore at this stage, I will touch on some of the issues that today’s consideration has raised.

One such issue has been our infrastructure. One of the key roles that a sovereign wealth fund can perform is to act as a vehicle to fund sustained investment in infrastructure. Although we may not have a sovereign wealth fund, or even a formal statutory target for the proportion of our GDP that we invest in infrastructure, the Government share my hon. Friend’s conviction about making the infrastructure investments we need that will boost our productivity and strengthen our economy. That is why we have asked the National Infrastructure Commission to make recommendations on the future infrastructure needs of the country.

Once again, I refer all Members to the commitment in the autumn statement, where we prioritised high-value investment in infrastructure and innovation. That included the new national productivity investment fund, with £23 billion of extra spending targeted at high-value projects that will deliver more opportunities and higher living standards for working people—whether that is more homes, better transport links or the 21st-century digital capacity we need.

[Ian Blackford]

The Minister is setting out why he thinks it is not relevant to set up a sovereign wealth fund today, but does he accept that there was a missed opportunity with the £340 billion bounty that came from North sea oil? That could have been used to establish an oil fund that would have delivered benefits for today and the future.

[Simon Kirby]

I often say as an MP—I suppose the same is true as a Minister—that it would be nice to have a crystal ball, a magic wand and a time machine. We are where we are, and we have to make the best decisions going forward—rather than looking back in anger, if I may quote the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).

The additional capital will take public sector net investment to over 4% of GDP for the rest of this Parliament, well above the average of the last 30 years; in real terms, it has been more than 50% higher on average this decade than it was under the whole period of the previous Government.

Another aspect of my hon. Friend’s excellent paper was the suggestion that a new national debt charge be carved out of income tax to help pay down the debt. He will know how much I share his conviction that we need to get debt falling, but I know he also shares the Government’s commitment to helping people who are just about managing. It is important that we build an economy that works for everyone. That is why we would not look to deliver a new income tax charge in our current position. Indeed, as part of the tax lock, we have legislated not to increase the main rates of income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT during this Parliament. Alongside that, we have prioritised an approach to taxation that supports working people, such as our increase in the tax-free personal allowance.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Ian Blackford Excerpts

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

To be clear, this is not a scheme we would have initiated. We have huge reservations about any move by the Government away from a collective pension system towards an individualised payments system. That is a very slippery slope that the Government will not be here to regret. That is why we will continue to scrutinise the lifetime ISA—a potential Trojan horse for the current pension system—and the Help to Save scheme, which is an attempt to salve the conscience of a few Conservative Back Benchers after the chainsaw the Government have taken to tax credits. If the Government will not concede, we shall pursue new clauses 2 and 6 to a Division.

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

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. I rise to speak to new clause 7 and amendments 7 to 11 and 13 to 22, which were tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

We in the SNP—[Interruption.] I see that Conservative Members are laughing, but if the Government had taken this issue seriously and accepted some well-intentioned amendments in Committee, we would not have had to table all these amendments this evening. Let me tell Conservative Members that this Bill is a seriously bad piece of legislation, and they should take it seriously, not scoff at it.

The Scottish National party has consistently warned of the dangers of the Bill and its consequences for savers. The SNP is supportive of any initiative that promotes savings, but the lifetime ISA is a gimmick, as it will work only for those who can afford to save to the levels demanded by the Government to get the bonus. The LISA falls short of real pension reform, and it is a distraction to allow the Treasury access to taxes today rather than having to wait for tomorrow.

Savings into a LISA are made out of after-tax income; pension contributions are tax exempt and tend to receive employer contributions. Saving through pensions remains the most attractive method of saving for retirement. While anything that encourages saving for later life has to be welcomed, the danger is that the Government will derail auto-enrolment. Help to Save is another example: we agree working to encourage savings is welcome, but once again the UK Government are only scratching the surface, rather than really targeting those struggling to plan for emergencies or later life.

The Bill risks seducing young people away from investing in a pension by encouraging investment in a lifetime ISA. We have said before that no one investing in an ISA can be better off than someone investing in a pension. Why are the Government persisting with the Bill? Let us be clear: if we pass the Bill tonight, we could create circumstances in which young people might be sold a lifetime ISA when their interests would be better served by investing in a pension. That is what we will do if we pass this Bill.

In Committee, we sought to make sure that safeguards were in place and that advice was available for applicants to remove that risk, but for some reason the Government refused to accept our reasonable proposals. This evening, we are pressing new clause 7, which would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all providers of LISAs or Help to Save accounts to provide applicants, at the point of application, with both advice on the suitability of the products to the individual and information on automatic enrolment and workplace pension schemes. Auto-enrolment is still in its infancy and is due to be reviewed next year, although we heard today that increases in payments to auto-enrolment schemes are now off the agenda. That too should be debated by the House and changed.

That has to be our priority for savings, but if we are not successful in pressing the new clause tonight, our only alternative is amendment 15, which would completely remove the LISA from the Bill. Our primary problem with the Bill as drafted is the LISA. While the UK Government rely on low opt-out rates from auto-enrolment to justify their claim that the LISA would not risk pension savings, we are not convinced. The Bill is a missed opportunity to focus on strengthening pension saving, rather than tinker with the savings landscape.

The amendments we tabled in Committee aimed to delay the LISA until safeguards were built in; they also highlighted the need for mandatory advice. The Government say that the LISA is a complementary product, not an alternative to pension saving, but they have given no real thought to the difficulties facing consumers in understanding their options and, for those who have savings, whether they are in the best product for their needs. Pensions are already confusing and complex; the LISA as it stands adds to that complexity. We need to build trust in savings. That can only come if consumers have confidence in what is offered to them. A new suite of savings products that in many cases are inferior to existing offerings does not help build confidence in savings.

On Second Reading the Financial Secretary said:

“What is attractive about the lifetime ISA is that people do not have to make an immediate decision about why they are saving this money…people not having to make that decision at an early stage when they cannot see what is ahead.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 607.]

That is an astonishing statement. Why is the Financial Secretary not saying that we ought to be encouraging pension savings? I get the point that we need to consider ways to help young people to get on the housing ladder. Perhaps we need to think about how investments in pension savings might help in that regard. That is one of the reasons I keep asking for the establishment of a pensions and savings commission, so we can look at these matters in a holistic manner. I keep making the point, and I make no apology for saying again, that nobody should be better off with a LISA than with pension savings.

The long-term cost of forgoing annual employer contributions worth 3% of salary by saving into a LISA would be substantial. For a basic rate taxpayer, the impact would be savings of roughly one third less in a LISA over a pension by the age of 60. For example, an employee earning £25,000 per annum and saving 4% of their income each year would see a difference in excess of £53,000. After 42 years, someone saving through a pension scheme would have a pot worth £166,289.99 at a growth rate of 3%; in a LISA at the same growth rate the value would be only £112,646.75. That is a difference of over £53,000, and the difference would be even greater if wage growth was factored in. That is why we cannot support the Government tonight on the LISA elements of the Bill.

Without the introduction of advice, we are creating the circumstances in which mis-selling can take place. How can we stop someone being sold a LISA when a pension plan would be better for the consumer’s needs? We cannot. That, quite simply, is why the Bill is wrong. The Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. They are creating the circumstances in which mis-selling can take place. I point the finger of blame at the Government for introducing this Bill and at every Member who is prepared to go through the Lobby tonight to support the Bill. Dwell on the example I gave where someone earning £25,000 per annum saving 4% of their salary could be as much as £53,000 worse off after 42 years. Who can honestly support that? That is not in consumers’ interests. It is de facto committing a fraud on savers in this country.

Today research has been published by True Potential. A poll of 2,000 employees showed that 30% of people aged between 25 and 40 would chose a LISA instead of a pension and that 58% of 25 to 34-year-olds would use their LISA for retirement savings. These statistics are the early warnings of the potential for mis-selling. Tonight, the House must vote to protect the consumer interest by backing new clause 7 to put in place an advice regime; failing that, Members should support amendment 15, which would delete LISAs from the Bill. Failure to do so will be a failure to take responsibility by each and every Member of this House.



I said on Second Reading:

"We would resist any further attempts to undermine pension saving and, specifically, to change the tax status of pension savings. That would be little more than an underhand way of driving up tax receipts—sweet talking workers to invest after-tax income in LISAs when their interests are best served by investing in pensions.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 620]

The sheer fact that the use of LISAs for retirement savings will be encouraged will confuse the public that this is a pension product and could disincentivise retirement savings in what should be traditional products. The Government's response that an amendment on advice would not work in practice, as it would create a barrier to accessing the LISA, is another quite extraordinary argument, as all that advice would do is make sure that consumers can make informed decisions. If there are consumers who choose to invest in a pension rather than a LISA product, I would be delighted, and so should the Government be.

The Government said it would be the role of the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place. Specifically on advice, we welcome the FCA’s proposed protections: firms will be required to give specific risk warnings at the point of sale, which include reminding consumers of the importance of ensuring an appropriate mix of assets is held in the LISA; they will also have to remind consumers of the early withdrawal charge and any other charges and they will have to offer a 30-day cancellation period after selling the LISA. However, still the risk is simply too great for the Government to treat it as an afterthought. There must be a formal mechanism to assist those seeking to increase saving, particularly where they are looking for a retirement product.

Even the Association of British Insurers, which cautiously welcomes the LISA, has said:

“LISA (and other ISA products) receives savings from money that is already taxed. This keeps the burden of taxation with working age people and takes money out of the real economy”.

This takes us back to why we are here and what the Government are proposing and why it is wrong.

As I also said on Second Reading:

“SNP Members welcome any reasonable proposals that encourage savings—we will work, where we can, with the UK Government to seek to encourage pension savings—but we very much see the Bill as a missed opportunity for us all to champion what we should be focusing on, which is strengthening pensions savings. Instead we have another wheeze that emanated from the laboratory of ideas of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and his advisers, who had form on constantly tinkering with the savings landscape. The right hon. Gentleman may have gone from the Front Bench, but his memory lingers on with this Bill.

Let us recall what the former Chancellor said in his Budget speech this year:

‘too many young people in their 20s and 30s have no pension and few savings. Ask them and they will tell you why. It is because they find pensions too complicated and inflexible, and most young people face an agonising choice of either saving to buy a home or saving for their retirement.’”—Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 618-19.]

--- Later in debate ---

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

This has been a wide-ranging debate, albeit with a relatively small number of speakers. Many of the arguments today were given a good airing during our Bill Committee discussions. I will try to address the key points raised by hon. Members, and will also set out why we think the Government amendments are necessary.

First, however, I want to touch on a point of policy that is of some relevance to the debate: a change to charges in the first year. We are making a small change to charges on early withdrawals from the lifetime ISA in its first year of operation, for the benefit of consumers. Although these rules will be set out in regulations, so do not affect the substance of the Bill before the House today, as a courtesy I thought some hon. Members would be interested, given the points raised in oral evidence to the Bill Committee.

The 25% Government charge on unauthorised withdrawals from the lifetime ISA recoups the Government bonus and applies a small additional charge. This is fair as it reflects the long-term nature of the product and ensures that individuals save into it for the intended purposes, protecting Government funds and taxpayers’ money. However, in 2017-18 only, the bonus will not be paid monthly, as it will be from April 2018 on, but will be paid as an annual bonus at year-end. This could create a difficult case where people face a 25% Government charge up to 12 months before they receive the bonus. We have listened to representations on this point, and so, to improve the product for consumers, I can confirm that there will be no Government charges in 2017-18.

If people want to withdraw from their lifetime ISA in 2017-18, they must close their account, and there will be no Government charge to do so. No bonuses will be paid on such closed accounts.

An individual who has closed their account will be able to open another lifetime ISA in 2017-18 and contribute up to £4,000 into it, if they wish to. From April 2018 the Government bonus will be paid monthly. This means that the 25% Government charge on withdrawals other than for a first-time house purchase, in the event of terminal illness or when the individual is over 60 will apply as per the overarching policy intention.

Government amendment 3 is about data sharing, and I wrote on this issue to the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and copied in the rest of the Bill Committee. We have heard that the lifetime ISA will provide an eligible first-time buyer with a new choice in saving for their first home, in addition to the existing help to buy ISA scheme. Both schemes provide that generous Government bonus of 25% that can be put towards a first home.

As we set out when we first announced the lifetime ISA, we intend that individuals will be able to save into both a Help to Buy ISA and a lifetime ISA, but they will only be able to use the bonus from one of the schemes when they buy their first home. Amendment 3 introduces a new paragraph to schedule 1 to allow HMRC and the administrator of the Help to Buy ISA to share information about bonus payments and charge-free withdrawals so that those rules can be policed. It also provides appropriate safeguards and sanctions in relation to the use of account holders’ information, including a criminal offence for unlawful disclosure of that information, in line with HMRC’s established duty of taxpayer confidentiality. The amendment is straightforward and will ensure that the scheme rules on Government bonuses can be effectively administered. I hope that the House will accept it.

Government amendments 4 and 5 concern residency conditions for Help to Save. That is a targeted scheme, as we have heard, that will support lower-income savers by providing a generous Government bonus on their savings. It is only right that that Government bonus should be available for savings made while an account holder is in the UK or has an appropriate connection with the UK, such as Crown servants serving overseas. The Bill already provides that, as well as meeting conditions in relation to working tax credit or universal credit, an individual must be in the UK to open an account. However, it is currently silent on the rules that apply where an account holder leaves the UK during the four-year lifetime of an account.

The amendments address that situation by allowing regulations to provide that the monthly payment limit for Help to Save can be set at nil in certain cases. We intend to use that power to provide that an individual cannot make payments to an account, and cannot thereby earn additional Government bonus, when they are not in the UK or do not have the appropriate connection to the UK. That will be supported by a requirement to notify the account provider if an account holder’s circumstances change and they will be absent from the UK. That approach broadly mirrors the arrangements currently in place for ISA accounts. The amendments also provide for a penalty where there is a failure to notify the account provider of such a change. However, that penalty will not apply where there is a reasonable excuse for the failure, and any person who receives a penalty will have the right to appeal. The House will have the opportunity to consider regulations dealing with eligibility for an account before the launch of the scheme.

These amendments allow an effective targeting of the generous Help to Save bonus, so that it can be earned only on savings made by individuals in the UK, or with an appropriate connection. On that basis, I hope that the House will accept them.

I will now respond to the non-Government amendments and new clauses. Again, we debated most of these issues at length in Committee. I will try not to recap all the arguments and to summarise the main ones.

New clause 3 and new clause 7 both concern advice for people opening either type of account. We have heard concerns that people may not get all the advice they need. I have been clear that the regulation of providers is the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates ISA providers and will likewise set the framework for the Lifetime ISA. It is consulting on its approach at the moment. On 16 November, it set out its suggested approach.

The Government of course want to ensure that people have the information that they need to make important financial decisions. We will provide clear information on gov.uk as well as work with the Money Advice Service and its successor to ensure that they make appropriate and impartial information available. The risk of mandating that people receive independent advice is that it makes investing in these products prohibitively expensive for many people. In Committee, we talked about the cost associated with mandating financial advice of that nature. Therefore, although I understand the sentiment behind those new clauses, I urge hon. Members not to press them and instead look at what the FCA has recommended in its initial suggestions to us.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

I will, although the hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes on this subject. I will take a brief intervention.

[Ian Blackford]

Speaking for 20 minutes when consumers are exposed to risk is not unreasonable. Can the Minister tell me which workers who have access to auto-enrolment will be better off under a LISA than they would under a pension?

[Jane Ellison]

I accept entirely, and it is evident from the hon. Gentleman’s speech, that he objects in principle to the lifetime ISA, but the matter before the House is whether we legislate for it, and the new clause I am addressing at the moment concerns financial advice. I have given examples of where the Government will be steering people towards advice. We are as keen as anyone that people have access to advice, but I urge him to look at the FCA consultation and what it has said, because it is the FCA’s job to steer us in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I am just saying that nothing in the Bill precludes that from happening now, so the amendment is unnecessary. We are in constructive discussions with the credit unions. They are not precluded from being part of a multiple provider model in future. I have laid out that, throughout the consultation, we identified that that was not a suitable model for the starting point. However, I honestly think that we are essentially coming at this from the same point of view. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, hon. Members will not press the amendment. As I say, we will continue to have those constructive discussions.

Amendment 7 seeks to pay the bonus every six months, rather than at the two and four-year mark of the Help to Save product. We believe that paying the bonus at two years and at account maturity strikes the right balance between giving people enough time to build up their savings and develop a savings habit and allowing them to access the bonus within an appropriate timescale. That is supported by evidence from similar savings schemes. Some Members will be aware that the savings gateway pilots showed that the optimal period for the saving habit to be embedded is two years.

I emphasise that people will still have full access to their savings with Help to Save, so even if they are able to save for only six months, they will still be entitled to receive a bonus at the two-year point or at maturity. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that we have looked carefully at the issue. I accept that it is, to an extent, a judgment call, but evidence from the savings gateway pilots, as well as from other peer-reviewed research, shows that the optimal time for the saving habit to be embedded is about 19 to 24 months. We think that we have struck the right balance, so I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Amendments 8 to 11 centre on the contribution limits. Not many Members spoke specifically about the issue and we explored it well in Committee. It is about being able to contribute a two-monthly average of £50. Our consultation specifically addressed the question of whether individuals should be able to pay in more than the £50 limit in certain circumstances. Respondents were very clear that that would add complexity to the scheme, both for savers and for account providers. It is worth noting that the Office for Budget Responsibility-certified forecast suggests that people will deposit £27.50 into their accounts each month on average. The £50 monthly limit is adequate, so I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Amendment 12 centres on eligibility for under-25s. The issue was explored in Committee and it has been touched on briefly today by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Our intention is to passport people into eligibility for Help to Save from working tax credit and universal credit. That is a well-established way of targeting people on lower incomes, and we think that it is the most simple and effective method for determining eligibility. Importantly, it removes the need for people either to complete a further means test to prove that they are eligible for an account or to contact the Government, both of which deter people from opening accounts. It also avoids additional costs associated with developing a new and complex eligibility checking system.

The hon. Gentleman also touched on amendment 13, which seeks to exempt bonuses from bankruptcy proceedings. Our approach is consistent with what we have done elsewhere. In the benefits system, for example, deductions are sometimes made to claims to repay debts. We think that, in reality, any accrued bonus represents an asset to the account holder and should be treated as such during any insolvency proceedings. Again, I urge Members not press the amendment.

The hon. Member for Harrow West began by speaking to new clause 1, which focuses on save-as-you-earn and the payroll reduction, which is also the subject of amendment 14. Both proposed amendments seek to introduce rules to allow people to deduct automatically amounts from their salary into a Help to Save account. In fact, amendment 14 goes further by proposing the introduction of auto-enrolment for Help to Save, allowing employers or benefit-paying bodies to divert money from employees’ pay into a Help to Save account, unless they opt out.

As I said in Committee, we want the decision to save into a Help to Save account to be an active choice made by eligible individuals at a time that is right for them. For many, that will mean saving flexibly, putting aside what they can afford each month, rather than committing to having a fixed amount deducted each month from their salary. There is nothing in the Bill to stop an employer offering payroll deduction for Help to Save to their employees, but we do not intend to make it a statutory requirement for employers to offer payroll deduction for Help to Save. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions must remain the priority for employers.

New clauses 2, 4, 5 and 6 seek to place a duty on the Government to review or publish analysis on certain aspects of the policies. In all cases we have already conducted an impact assessment, published alongside the Bill. At the time of the autumn statement, we published a cumulative distribution analysis of all the policies implemented during the 2015-20 Parliament, including of the lifetime ISA and Help to Save. We believe that it is important to look at the cumulative impact of tax and spending decisions, rather than the impact of individual measures in isolation. The distributional analysis that the Government have published since 2010 has always taken that cumulative, rather than measure-by-measure, approach.

As with all Government policies, we will, of course, keep the lifetime ISA under review to ensure that it is meeting its objectives. Indeed, we already regularly publish a wide range of detail about the take-up of Government-supported savings accounts such as ISAs. We intend to take a similar approach to the lifetime ISA, so we have already done a lot in that regard.

We discussed the interaction with the housing market in Committee, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) has said. In essence, any impact that the lifetime ISA has on the housing market is likely to be very difficult to detect among other factors. As was said in Committee, the accusations that this product benefits only the wealthy do not bear scrutiny, given that the Help to Buy ISA has been used to buy homes worth on average £167,250, which is well under the property price cap. The accusations are not fair.

The interaction with automatic enrolment dominated the contribution of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. We covered the issue in detail in Committee, and I once again stress the Government’s absolute commitment to automatic enrolment. It is wrong to say that we are seeking to derail it. The lifetime ISA—the Treasury is clear on this—is designed to be a complement to automatic enrolment and workplace pensions, not a replacement. Our costings do not assume that people will opt out of their workplace pension in order to pay into a lifetime ISA. Encouragingly, the figures show that the opt-out rate is very low so far. Taking all those things together, we do not think that the proposed new clauses are necessary, so I urge hon. Members not to press them.

Amendments 15 to 22 would effectively cancel the lifetime ISA from the Bill. It is evident from my comments so far that I have no intention of accepting the amendments. It is clear that we have a disagreement in principle. The hon. Gentleman’s accusations against the measure bordered on hyperbole. He said that he is prepared to look at any reasonable proposal that helps people to save, but we know from the consultations on the complex subject of saving for the future that this is a product that will help many people save. It is a direct response to the comments made in response to a public consultation about the complexity of savings options.

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

No, I am going to press on.

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

No. We have had a good debate, both in Committee and here, and I am going to press on. I have to date taken slightly less time than the hon. Gentleman—

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way. It is apparent to everybody else in the Chamber and I am sure that it is now apparent to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jane Ellison]

Amendments 15 to 22 seek to cancel half the Bill—I am not going to accept them. I refer the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to the FCA’s consultation; I do not think that it would recognise his comments, and neither do I.

Amendment 1 would change the normal maturity period for Help to Save accounts from 48 to 24 months. In practice, people would be able to save into a Help to Save account for only two years rather than four. We designed the scheme so that people can save into a Help to Save account and get a Government bonus after two years, and then continue to save and receive a further bonus when the account matures after four years. We have done that because we want the target group to be able to save as regularly as other people and they may take longer to save towards that vital rainy day fund. It also provides an incentive for people to continue saving beyond two years, which fits with our objective to encourage people to develop a long-term saving habit. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Finally, amendment 6 would delay commencement until April 2019, when automatic enrolment into workplace pensions will be fully rolled out. We have been very clear that we do not expect lifetime ISAs to drive opt-outs from pension saving. There is, therefore, no reason to delay. In fact, such a delay would disadvantage those who wish to open a lifetime ISA and who have been preparing for a 2017 launch. The hon. Gentleman completely disregarded the fact that self-employed people do not have the option of access to a workplace pension scheme. That came out in evidence to the Bill Committee. There was not a word about the self-employed.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

No, I will not.

The proposal would also delay Help to Save for a year, disadvantaging the savers on low incomes who will benefit from the scheme. Like many hon. Members, I am passionate about the Help to Save scheme and want to see it go ahead as planned. I intend to work with all who have been mentioned—the credit unions, many financial inclusion charities, and the Churches—to ensure that we exceed the take-up target for Help to Save. I will be delighted if we vastly exceed the target, and that is my intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I must say that I think we will repent of this legislation in due course. We cannot get away from all the evidence that was presented to us. The evidence from the Association of British Insurers makes it abundantly clear that anyone who has the opportunity to invest in a workplace pension will be worse off investing in a LISA than investing in their pension. I listened to the Minister talking about those who are self-employed and who do not have the opportunities and advantages of auto-enrolment when what we should have been doing was introducing legislation to deal with that problem.

We have the opportunity to do that when we review auto-enrolment next year. There is no need for this legislation for ordinary people; they will not benefit from the LISA. I put it to the House that this will reward those who have already maxed out their pension schemes by giving them another opportunity that will help them through this Government bonus. It is not so much a LISA as what we would call a “Rupert”—a really useful perk for extremely rich Tories. They are the only people who will benefit from the Bill.

When it comes to what is really important, I am delighted that True Potential has published its evidence today. Let me give two statistics from that. First, 30% of people aged between 25 and 30 would, if given the opportunity, choose a LISA instead of a pension, and 58% of 25 to 34-year-olds would choose the LISA for retirement savings. We know that those with the opportunity to invest in a pension will always be better off. As I said on Second Reading, the Government have wilfully created circumstances in which young people in this country will be mis-sold LISAs. The Government should be utterly ashamed.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert—

‘(2) This Act comes into force on the day after the establishment of an Independent Pensions and Savings Commission.’

This amendment would delay the commencement of the products until an independent pensions and savings commission is established.

The amendment would delay the commencement of the products until an independent pensions and savings commission was established. The Scottish National party has long called for the establishment of an independent pensions and savings commission to look at the crisis in saving for retirement. Following the success of the Turner commission, we should recognise that we need a standing commission to help us steer a long-term, sustainable path for pensions and savings. The Cridland commission is looking at the state retirement and pensionable age, which we welcome, but all such matters should be looked at holistically.

A commission of experts, free from political influence, could focus on all aspects of pensions and savings, with a view to delivering a universal pensions and savings system that enables dignity in retirement. Such a commission is needed to minimise politically motivated changes to pensions and savings, with the aim of eliminating complexity and perverse incentives. We have voiced our legitimate concerns that the Bill risks undermining pension savings and redirecting consumers to products that will not confer the greater level of benefits that pension savings offer. We need to pause and consider what we are seeking to achieve with pensions and other savings products, while making sure that we build confidence in pension savings in particular.

Malcolm McLean of Barnett Waddingham, the pensions consultant, who is a former head of the Pensions Advisory Service, said:

“Much of pension policy seems to be dictated by political expediency rather than the needs of consumers… Political time horizons are too short. Pension policy is controlled by a government whose agenda is short-term, yet pensions are a long-term issue.”

Chris Noon, a partner at the consultancy Hymans Robertson, also commented on the need to free pensions from the political system, saying:

“Political temptation to raid pensions in hard times is too great. We need less meddling and more long-term thinking. We need to get the best brains together to work out how we deal with longer term, intergenerational issues.”

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

Good morning to you, Mr Wilson, and to the rest of the Committee.

As we have just heard, the amendment concerns the date from which the Bill will come into force as an Act. The hon. Gentleman has outlined his reasons for wanting a delay. The amendment would provide that the Act will not come into force until the day after the establishment of the independent pensions and savings commission he has just described.

Over the course of our deliberations in Committee, we have discussed why the schemes in the Bill are really positive steps for savers, so I will not go through those arguments at length again. The fundamental point is that we want both the lifetime individual savings account and Help to Save to become available to people as soon as possible. A delay would not be fair to the people who could have benefited from them. For example, delaying the lifetime ISA for a year would mean that people would miss out on the chance to save up to £4,000 into such an ISA and get a bonus of up to £1,000.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister confirm that anyone who has the opportunity to enrol in an auto-enrolment pension is going to be better off doing that than investing in an ISA? That is one of the issues we are trying to determine with the amendment.

[Jane Ellison]

To some extent, we are returning to a debate we had during last week’s proceedings. The products in the Bill are not designed to be an alternative to pensions. The Government could not have been clearer in expressing our strong support for auto-enrolment and pensions saving more generally. Help to Save is very much a product directed at people for whom there is very little choice available in the savings products that are currently on the market.

[Ian Blackford]

I apologise for coming back to this, but it is critical. My real worry is that there is nothing that will prevent someone from taking out a LISA and perhaps not taking out an automatic enrolment pension, when the latter would be best for their financial interests. My real concern with the LISA and its consequences is that we will end up with savers putting money into products that are, in this case, not fit for purpose.

[Jane Ellison]

That takes us back to territory we have covered. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity in putting forward his concerns, which he has expressed during debates on other amendments, but as I say, the Government are completely committed to auto-enrolment. We want to have a robust, functioning pension system, but there is also a need for complementary products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

Yes, I do. That is exactly right. I remind the Committee of the independent Financial Conduct Authority’s remit in this regard. Its role is to regulate the providers of policies to ensure, as is its ordinary remit, that they are transparent to consumers about the products that they are offering and that those products are sold with suitable safeguards in place. That is in addition to the Government publishing factual information about the lifetime ISA on gov.uk and working with the Money Advice Service and its successor to ensure that appropriate information is available. I reiterate that if we want individuals to be well informed, those are the mechanisms by which an individual, with their individual circumstances, will be informed. I genuinely do not think that a commission is the way to look at advising each individual, because by its very nature, it cannot look at each person’s affairs, life and aspirations and say what is right for them. We need to give people individual advice.

[Ian Blackford]

I am very grateful to the Minister; she is being generous with her time. The whole point about a pensions and savings commission is not to look at each individual and give advice, but to ensure that we bring Government policy together and look holistically at all the issues affecting pensions and savings, deal with the fact that we have had so many gimmicks like these and get something that is right for the long term for those who wish to save for their pensions.

[Jane Ellison]

I do not accept that these are gimmicks. I do not think the hon. Gentleman means what he said about Help to Save. If we can help thousands of families to save money for a rainy day and stave off disaster, to which they are all too susceptible at the moment, that would be a very good thing, and all of us on the Committee could take pride in that.

[Ian Blackford]

To clarify, I am talking about the LISA. I have not made any reference to Help to Save in this regard. I am specifically addressing what I see as the shortcomings of the LISA.

[Jane Ellison]

Indeed, and we have debated that in previous sittings. The thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that the Government do not consult and are not reviewing things, and that Governments—I suspect he means Governments of all colours—have tinkered with these things. I do not accept the broad point. We have done consultations on Help to Save and the lifetime ISA came out of an extensive consultation on pension tax relief. It is worth noting that there was no clear consensus from that. It is not as if the truth is out there, and if we just have an enormous commission, we will come to one point of view that everyone agrees with. In this area, there is a lot of debate and contention, and therefore we are trying to find a way through that goes with the grain of human nature and common sense. That is why having the lifetime ISA as a complementary product to auto-enrolment or people’s other pension arrangements makes sense.

I will finish the point about Government reviews, because it is worth getting it on the record. We already hold all savings policy under review, particularly through the Budget process. Our commitment to reviewing policy is also evident in the review of the state pension age, which will be informed by the independent report led by John Cridland, and the upcoming review of automatic enrolment in 2017. The Government are not walking away from the important job of scrutinising how things land in reality, but I am not persuaded that the reasons the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber advanced for a delay are right in the context of these two products and this Bill.

[Ian Blackford]

Does the Minister accept that the Turner commission was a force for good and for change in pensions and savings in this country? Out of the Turner commission, we effectively got auto-enrolment, about which there was cross-party consensus in the House. That is what we seek to achieve by taking these issues away to a commission. That would create the circumstances in which we could all work together to improve the pensions and savings landscape in this country.

[Jane Ellison]

Let me try to wind this debate up on a note of consensus. Where we can achieve consensus on important long-term reforms—auto-enrolment is a very good example—it is wise to do so, but we are debating apples and pears here. The debate about what is the right way to go in the pensions and savings landscape over the next several decades is separate from, albeit related to, the Bill and the two products that we want to bring in to augment the available landscape of products for individuals in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause builds on new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Bootle, and it makes specific reference to advice to be given on automatic enrolment and workplace saving. Many people are in the dark about what they can expect from the state and their employers when they retire. The complexities in the system and in products and the lack of independent advice are not only confusing but may lead to a lack of uptake on saving.

In March 2016, Citizens Advice, which delivers the face-to-face channel of Pension Wise, found that some of the most used pension terms were confusing for customers. It said that people would find it easier to understand their pensions if the industry used simple, standard language to describe its products. It says that some people are also unclear about terms that appear to be more straightforward, which puts them at risk of missing out on the best pension options for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Ian Blackford]

I am disappointed that the Minister has decided to reject the new clause, because it is about ensuring that those applying for the LISA or Help to Save have appropriate advice, which is important to them. We have talked about ensuring that people are aware of the other choices that they have, particularly auto-enrolment. The new clause is about ensuring that we do not end up in a situation where there could be any dubiety about the potential for mis-selling. This is not about the regulator; it is about ensuring that consumers are given all available information at the point of sale. On that basis, I seek to press the new clause to a vote.

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

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Ian Blackford 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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in schedule 2, page 18, line 19, leave out “maximum” and insert “average”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 5.

Amendment 4, in schedule 2, page 18, line 19, after “means”, insert “an average of”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 5.

Amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 18, line 19, after “£50” insert

“across every two month period within the maturity period”.

Together with amendments 2 and 3, this amendment would allow HTS to provide for “top-up” monthly payments above £50 so long as the average payment for every two months is £50.

[Ian Blackford]

The amendments would allow Help to Save to provide for top-up monthly payments above £50 as long as the average monthly payment in every two-month period was £50. Many people in the target group will have fluctuating incomes. Allowing people to save a maximum of only £50 per month will reduce applications from people who may have, say, £20 spare one month and £70 spare the next.

A survey by StepChange revealed that 34% of respondents

“would prefer to be able to pay in an average maximum of £50 per month.”

The amendments would allow Help to Save account holders to save an average of £50 per month over the course of the account period. That would allow account holders to overpay to catch up following lower payments in previous months and maximise bonus payments. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the amendments as a way of strengthening the Bill.

[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.

[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.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the Minister for her remarks, but I am both a little surprised and a little disappointed. I thought the Government were in favour of freedom and choice and what we seem to have here is a Government who are trying to shut down freedom and choice. The Minister talks about complexity; I cannot see why giving consumers the choice of being able to get to £50 over an average will bring additional complexity. I think that this is really just a software issue for those who are going to be providing the scheme, so I do not accept that argument. We will be pressing the amendment to a vote, because it is the right thing to do. This is about growing the market for Help to Save, and the amendment has been put forward with a genuine desire to help the Government make this policy more attractive. The Minister talks about coming back to the scheme in the future, but I think we should put that flexibility in today. On that basis, I wish to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I take on board the Minister’s concern, particularly for people who may be in multiple employment; that is a fair point. I am not sure that the arrangement would not be hugely beneficial for employers too, or that they would be all that resistant. The amendment is intended as an enabling provision, but in the interest of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ian Blackford]

I beg to move amendment 7, in schedule 2, page 19, line 31, at end insert—

‘(2A) Where a bankruptcy order is made against a person with a Help-to-Save account any bonus paid into the Help-to-Save account will not form part of a debtors estate during insolvency proceedings.

(2B) Any bonus paid into a Help-to-Save account shall not be liable to be taken as repayment via third party debt orders.’

The amendment would ensure that those subject to a bankruptcy order would not be stripped of their assets. Currently, Help to Save affords no protection to the Government bonus paid into accounts from insolvency proceedings or third-party debt orders from creditors. The Government need to look closely at the debt collection and insolvency implications of the scheme. Given the target audience of Help to Save, it is likely that many will face financial difficulties while holding a Help to Save account. That would leave them vulnerable to third-party debt orders and potential insolvency.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I wonder why the hon. Gentleman is proposing this provision for protection from insolvency when we know that under section 283 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the bankrupt’s home is not protected from insolvency. A pension that is already in payment is also not protected.

[Ian Blackford]

I would not agree with the last assertion, because pension payments—certainly pension pots—are protected under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. That condition exists, so I do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady on that point.

[Lucy Frazer]

They are not protected once they are already in payment.

[Ian Blackford]

That is not the point that I made, which was about when payments are in the pension pot. We are arguing that the pots should be protected under the Help to Save scheme. Given that a key purpose of the Help to Save scheme is to promote long-term financial resilience, it would be counterproductive if creditors could take the money saved, or even the bonus, to satisfy existing debts. That would result in creditors benefiting from public money intended to help low-income families build precautionary savings. At the very least, the bonus should be protected. For the absence of doubt, there is a precedent for that in the 1999 Act, which states that approved pension arrangements do not form part of the bankrupt’s estate.

[Jane Ellison]

The amendment seeks to prevent creditors from accessing the Government bonus in the event that the account holder is subject to insolvency proceedings or a third-party debt order. Obviously I appreciate that the objective is to protect the account holder, but the Government also need to consider what is fair to creditors by not providing people with an opportunity to shelter from debt proceedings when a creditor has a legal right to be repaid.

I am aware that it has been argued that a special case should be made for ring-fencing the Government bonus to avoid taxpayers’ money being used to repay debts, but I underline that the scheme rules mean that account holders will be entitled to a bonus on the highest balance achieved in the account. That represents an asset for the account holder, and it should be treated as such in any insolvency proceedings.

It is worth noting that there was a Government policy change that meant that, from October 2015, the minimum debt on which creditors can ask the court to declare an individual bankrupt rose to £5,000 from £750, ensuring that people with low-level debts are taken out of that. This measure is consistent with Government policy in other areas—that is the point my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire made—such as the rules around when funds to pay creditors can be deducted from benefit payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

A fair point—I certainly acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. What we propose in the Bill around creditors and insolvency is consistent with Government policy in other areas. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to withdraw the amendment.

[Ian Blackford]

I am flabbergasted that some Government Back Benchers do not even understand their own legislation. The amendment would put Help to Save on the same footing as pension pots, and I will certainly press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Third sitting)

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[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—

[The Chair]

Order. You refer to hon. Members not by their name but by their constituency. He is the hon. Member for Bootle.

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed. The hon. Member for Bootle is right to ask the UK Government to keep a watchful eye on the impact of automatic enrolment. However, that does not go far enough. The LISA must be paused. It is a gimmick that has not been thought through. The impact assessment states:

“The government could have done nothing more, relying on existing tax incentives to promote saving among younger people and working families on low incomes. However, this would have failed to provide the necessary level of support for those who are unable to use existing support to plan and save for their future.”

What a dismal statement. Where is the vision? Where is the hope? Where is the idea of a Government who can architect a pensions savings system that encourages young people to save? Should we not bring forward next year’s review of auto-enrolment and make sure that we have the tax incentives and the structure right? That is what we should be doing, not introducing this hopeless gimmick that risks mis-selling to young people in this country. This Government stand charged with creating circumstances that could lead to mis-selling through this product. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

The SNP has tabled amendments that ask for the LISA to be halted until workplace savings are enhanced through automatic enrolment, which is the right way to proceed. Stakeholders have picked apart the UK Government’s main arguments for the LISA, including that it will be good for self-employed individuals who are left out of automatic enrolment. The British Bankers Association said that

“two thirds of the self-employed are already ineligible for the lifetime ISA.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 18, Q34.]

One of the Government’s major arguments has been shown to be fatally flawed. Why do we not reform auto-enrolment to make sure that the self-employed are included? That is the right way to progress.

At present, as a savings model, the LISA only supports the wealthy—those with the ability to save. New clause 2 is a welcome move to promote financial advice. We welcome this amendment. However, an SNP new clause that will be tabled ahead of the next stage will go further and explicitly demand that the advice extends to workplace savings and automatic enrolment and targets young people. We encourage Labour colleagues, and indeed the Government, to join us in supporting that new clause.

In its oral evidence to the Committee, the Association of British Insurers raised concerns about the communication of the difference between automatic enrolment and the LISA. There is a real concern that individuals could switch out of automatic enrolment and into LISA, and that

“they could lose up to a third once they get to the age of 60.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 5, Q1.]

The ABI also said that

“there needs to be a strong signpost towards the guidance services.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 9, Q14.]

Individuals who choose to invest in a LISA, rather than investing through automatic enrolment, could lose a third of their retirement benefits.

Carol Knight of the Tax Incentivised Savings Association said:

“We should be looking at retirement saving as a whole and helping people to put different types of assets towards funding later life.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 14, Q26.]

It is clear that stakeholders are concerned about the confusion that may arrive for savers with the introduction of the LISA. When he gave evidence to the Committee, Tom McPhail from Hargreaves Lansdown said forcefully:

“We are in danger of sending ISAs down the same road as pensions, making them more and more complicated.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 15, Q29.]

He advised of savers that it is

“really important that we support them with good information”.––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 16, Q31.]

As well as the potential distractions from auto-enrolment pension schemes, the LISA represents a major missed opportunity to increase the attractiveness of auto-enrolment. In a submission to the Work and Pensions Committee, the union Prospect argues:

“If Government wants to subsidise younger workers saving towards a deposit on a first home it could just as easily do so through changing the rules relating to the taxation of pension schemes as through introducing the Lifetime ISA. Such an approach would greatly increase the attractiveness of automatic enrolment pension schemes.”

The submission goes on to say:

“Anecdotally, Prospect members who opt out of automatic enrolment pension schemes sometimes report they do so in order to be able to save towards a deposit for a first home. Research shows a majority of young people would be more inclined to save into a pension scheme or would save more if they could use their pension pot to fund a deposit for a first home.”

Prospect also points out:

“In New Zealand the rules of the Kiwisaver allow the withdrawal of savings to purchase a first home”,

and research from the Pensions Policy Institute shows that early access and borrowing against funds for the purpose of home purchases are permitted in other countries.

David Wren of the BBA pointed out that the LISA will be the sixth type of ISA on the market. He said:

“The hybrid nature of the product—between saving for a house and saving long term for retirement—also adds considerable complexity for people who are choosing where to save and what to do.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 17, Q32.]

He also noted that

“complexity is definitely the enemy of success in getting people to save.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 20, Q39.]

That is why robust financial advice that takes account of an individual’s other savings and pension pots is essential. We do not accept that no alternatives to the LISA were considered—the impact assessment for the Bill spells that out clearly. The Government must look at other options. Surely the delay that we are calling for would give the space for a pause.

Since its introduction in 2012, auto-enrolment has been a success, with more than 6.7 million workers successfully enrolled by September 2016 and lower opt-out rates and higher employer compliance than was initially expected. That success has been built on the back of a broad political consensus and thorough planning ahead of its introduction. As the National Audit Office report on auto-enrolment pointed out, the policy faces greater operational risk as it is rolled out to small employers. The phasing in of increases to minimum contribution levels also presents challenges. A separate NAO report identified a potential risk if individual interventions

“are managed separately without adequate consideration of their impact on the overall objective of increasing retirement incomes.”

That warning could hardly fit the circumstances of the introduction of the LISA any better.

The Government’s main priority should be to build on the success of auto-enrolment to date and deal with the upcoming challenges that have been identified. That work should include strategies for addressing issues with ineligibility for auto-enrolment and for increasing contributions under auto-enrolment. That is particularly important for workers aged under 40, because most will be worse off in retirement as a result of the introduction of the new state pension. Prospect also said that

“the Government is in danger of losing focus on what should be its priority with the introduction of the Lifetime ISA.”

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I rise to support new clauses 1 and 2, along with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and much of what was said by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. It would be sensible of the Government to accept the new clauses. They are practical and logical, and it is perfectly reasonable that we want a review of the effect of the LISA on auto-enrolment and pensions savings and that anybody choosing to buy a LISA is given proper advice. None of that would undermine the Government’s legislation; it would actually improve it considerably and give the necessary protections.

I have considerable doubts about the wisdom of going ahead with lifetime ISAs. The whole pensions and savings world has been far too complicated for far too long. Some 25 or 30 years ago, I reached the age at which I had sufficient income to start to save so that I would have extra income in my later years—I must say that I am now benefiting from that, in spite of having a very generous parliamentary pension as well. At that time it was extremely complicated. There were tax-exempt special savings accounts, personal equity plans, ISAs, national savings certificates and all sorts of tax-free savings instruments, but interestingly they were all perfectly acceptable for people on higher rate tax like me. I have always been concerned about that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to be here with you and the Committee, Mr Chope. I thank everybody for their attention at the very good witness sessions on Tuesday, when we heard from some very interesting people who were good enough to give up their time to come and inform our deliberations.

I will say a general word around lifetime ISAs when speaking to clause 1 and will come on to new clause 2. However, I should say first that there is much about the spirit of the new clauses and amendments proposed with which I agree, as I think we all would. When I come to speak on them, it will be to demonstrate that they are unnecessary or would not work as intended. I do understand the spirit in which they are tabled. I also note, as we all have, that there are areas of significant consensus across the Committee, particularly around auto-enrolment, the success it has been and the wish to see it go from strength to strength.

I will come to that in a moment, but I will first introduce the broader product. We believe the lifetime ISA is a positive addition to the savings landscape. That was a view substantiated by a number of the experts we heard from on Tuesday. It will support younger people to save for a first home and to supplement their long-term savings by topping up individual contributions with a generous 25% Government bonus of up to £1,000 a year.

In 2015, the Government held a full consultation on pension tax relief, which is the background to how we came to the lifetime ISA. The outcome was clear: there was at that time no consensus for fundamental reform to the pension tax system. In some ways, some of the comments that we have heard in speeches this morning reflect the fact that there is still a desire among some people for a fundamental redrawing of the landscape, but the reality is that that is a debate for another time and place. We are in Committee to deal with this Bill, but I acknowledge that that other debate is ongoing.

Throughout the course of the consultation, young people indicated that they wanted more ways to save flexibly for the future. At Budget 2016, therefore, the Government announced the introduction of the lifetime ISA, which has been welcomed by insurers, ISA providers and other industry experts, as we heard on Tuesday. Although some people had some concerns, I think it is fair to say that there was a broad degree of welcome from people across the sector. They see the lifetime ISA as a valuable new vehicle to help young people save.

[Ian Blackford]

Does not the Minister accept that all the generous bonus will do, in effect, is compensate those who have gone into the LISA for the fact that, in contrast to a pension where people are putting pre-tax income in, the money is coming out of post-tax income, so on a zero-sum basis it comes out more or less the same? Anyone going into a pension can expect to get employer contributions, so anyone saving in a pension will be better off. For the life of me, I cannot understand, given the cross-party consensus about supporting and strengthening auto-enrolment, why on earth she wants to muddy the water so that people might be seduced into this product when they should be investing in a pension.

[Jane Ellison]

This perhaps goes to the nub of the disagreement we have in Committee: the Government do not see it as an either/or. The hon. Gentleman is very much positing the product versus pensions as an either/or, but we have been quite clear that the lifetime ISA is a complement, and we heard that from witnesses. I also think that, while acknowledging the consensus to protect auto-enrolment, and indeed to encourage people to save with the pension products appropriate for them, to jump from that to the assumption that the lifetime ISA is, by its nature, going to undermine everything else is a jump too far. I would reject some of his language. Later, I will come on to some points to support my assertion.

The clause itself sets out the defining characteristic of the lifetime ISA: a Government bonus will be paid by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs where a qualifying addition is made to a lifetime ISA in a relevant period. “Lifetime ISA”, “qualifying addition” and “relevant period” will be defined in regulations, which will also provide that the Government bonus will be 25% of all qualifying additions made to the account. I confirm that those new regulations will be brought to the House for debate ahead of the launch of the new account in April 2017. Further detail on the lifetime ISA is set out in schedule 1.

New clause 1 seeks to place a requirement on the Government to conduct an annual review of whether the lifetime ISA has had any impact on workplace pensions, and in particular automatic enrolment, as we heard from the shadow Minister. The Government are absolutely committed to automatic enrolment, which will help 10 million people to newly save or to save more into pensions by 2018.

The lifetime ISA is designed to be a complement to automatic enrolment and workplace pensions, not a replacement. We are clear about that language, and we will continue to be. The aim of the lifetime ISA is to support younger people to purchase a first home and to supplement their long-term savings, not to choose between the two. The reality is that some of the youngest people who take out this product will be able to take the money out at 60, but that will not be their retirement age. We are talking about people saving for a later phase of their life, perhaps the last phase of their working life, or to do something in their later years that they always wished to do but did not have the chance to do when they were younger.

The Government’s different policies on employer contributions to a pension and a lifetime ISA reflect all that, which goes to the point made in an intervention. Employers have a statutory obligation to contribute towards pensions under automatic enrolment. They also have a direct incentive to do so through relief on national insurance contributions. The cost of that to the Exchequer was £13.8 billion in 2014-15, which is a powerful demonstration of the Government’s commitment to retain strong incentives in the system. Neither is the case with the lifetime ISA.

We have already conducted an impact assessment, published alongside the Bill, and we clearly do not expect that people will opt out of their workplace pension in order to pay into a lifetime ISA instead. The help to buy ISA already provides a 25% bonus to support people to purchase a first home, but the launch of that did not lead to a surge in opt-outs. I accept that it is a slightly different product, with a different timescale. Nevertheless, there is real-world evidence that it did not lead to that.

--- Later in debate ---

The opt-out rate for automatic enrolment is still lower than the Government expected, and is currently at 9%. The overall programme assumption for opt-out is 15%, reduced from the original estimate of 28%, which I think we all welcome. The Government estimate was not quite right at first and I am happy that we are undershooting. People—particularly young people—are sticking with auto-enrolment and not opting out at the rates Members thought they might.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with the Minister about us all being satisfied by the opt-out rate being lower than anticipated. The real challenge will come in the next few years, as rates going into the auto-enrolment scheme increase. That is why it is important we keep the primary focus on auto-enrolment, to ensure that as contribution levels increase, we do not inadvertently see an increase in the opt-out rate, with people perhaps switching to the LISA.

[Jane Ellison]

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s broad point. He assumes the worst will happen, whereas I have good evidence to show that that is not a reasonable assumption. I will go on to show that we are keeping these things under constant review across the broad piece of pensions and savings.

The lifetime ISA, like all Government policies, will be kept under review to ensure that it is meeting its objectives. We already publish a wide range of details about the take-up of Government-supported savings accounts such as ISAs, and we intend to take a similar approach with the lifetime ISA. Similarly, national statistics and other information such as the Office for National Statistics wealth and assets survey set out information on the savings held across a range of different household types. It is quite granular information.

As the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said earlier, we have a legislative commitment to review certain aspects of auto-enrolment in 2017. In addition, we have the discretion to conduct wider review activity. We recognise that broader challenges and questions have been raised by stakeholders in connection with the review—for example, questions of inclusion and adequacy. It is important we look at the scope and the right sequencing of review activity. The Government are currently scoping the review and hope to update further on that by the end of the year. Of course, the debate we are having in this Committee will inform those deliberations. Because of that, we consider publishing an additional review of the scheme’s operation to be unnecessary in terms of its interaction with the product we are discussing in this clause. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bootle not to press new clause 1.

New clause 2 seeks that the Government provide in regulations that independent financial advice is made available to all customers making an application for a lifetime ISA. I think we all agree with the thrust of the debate on the new clause. We have all seen victims of mis-selling and want to ensure that our constituents go into every financial decision with the best information available. The Government want people to have the information they need to make important financial decisions and we will achieve that by providing clear factual information on gov.uk, as well as working with the Money Advice Service and its successor to ensure they make appropriate and impartial information available.

New clause 2 would require all individuals to take out financial advice before they open a lifetime ISA. I want to demonstrate that that is not practical, however well intentioned it is. Financial advice is relatively expensive. The point has been made that we do not want to disadvantage younger people and basic rate taxpayers who want to take advantage of this product. Our impact assessment and all the work that we have done indicate that the vast majority of people who take up the product will be basic rate taxpayers.

Research carried out by Unbiased shows that the average cost of financial advice for customers is £150 per hour and the average advice process takes around eight hours. That totals £1,200. Even if we assume that that is the upper end of estimates, it is still £200 more than the maximum annual bonus that an individual could receive from the lifetime ISA. That would create a significant barrier to all but the wealthiest individuals opening a lifetime ISA, and I know that that is the opposite of the Opposition’s intent.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Second sitting)

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Have you done any analysis of how many in this target market are currently in the area that would benefit from auto-enrolment? How do you see the interaction between auto-enrolment and Help to Save in that regard? What comments would you make on the incentives there for pension investment against the incentives there for Help to Save?

Ed Boyd: Before I come to that question, there is a point of context. One of the important things we stress in our research briefing is not seeing Help to Save in isolation. We are big fans of auto-enrolment as well. You look at the success with pensions and say, “This is important. Why wouldn’t we use that mechanism here, or at least try to tie that in?”

That brings up a question in our minds looking at things like contributory benefits. Over decades and decades and all kinds of Government, the generosity of them has slightly reduced continually and, actually, if you look at universal credit, the architecture is very different from legacy benefits, ensuring that people have the appropriate support if they fall out of work through their national insurance contributions. It is difficult to see how that ties up. One of the potential answers, and the reason I mention that, is to look at auto-enrolment and rainy-day guarantee funds being set up through employers in the same way you have done with pensions to provide insurance for people against smaller income shocks such as washing machine breakdowns and also for larger ones such as falling out of work.

To consider Help to Save in isolation from that wider debate would be a mistake. There is a great opportunity here to tie together different things that are happening around Government to ensure that you have a very clear, succinct, offer and approach to people who are in work but on low incomes, who we are encouraging to save. Combining those things together through Government thought would be useful.

As an organisation, we are not at a point yet to say, “Here is how we think it could work and here is the big solution,” but we are developing a lot of our agenda on this at the moment. Again, as the Bill is going through we are happy to contribute, but it feels like a really important thing to discuss as the Bill goes on its passage through the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

Joseph Surtees: In terms of the success and appeal of auto-enrolment, I referred earlier to the National Employment Savings Trust figures and auto-enrolment figures that say that there is more success and less opt-out from those with less income than from those with higher income. I would also refer you to a lot of work done in the United States by a couple of academics called Madrian and Shea, who looked at how auto-enrolment increases savings rates in businesses through payroll deduction. They found huge impacts, such as the number of people saving within a company doubling within a very short period of time once auto-enrolment was introduced.

On Help to Save, as I have said, auto-enrolment would really help, especially from the benefits side of things. There are even smaller tweaks that will help get that 500,000 figure closer to 3.5 million. Moving the bonus to getting it every six months would have a huge beneficial impact, as would allowing people to pay in an average of £50 a month rather than a maximum of £50 a month and looking at the issue of under 25-year-olds being excluded from Help to Save by the benefits rules concerning working tax credits. There are small changes you can make now that would have a big impact.

[Ian Blackford]

Q Thank you for that. Those were interesting answers from both of you. Ed, when you talk about how you see that auto-enrolment can deal with some of the challenges that you have outlined, I wonder whether you would see as an example something like an insurance wrapper that would give the kind of benefits that you are talking about as an advancement of auto-enrolment.

Ed Boyd: Could you say that again? I did not quite get that.

[Ian Blackford]

Maybe something like an insurance wrapper could give the kind of benefits that you are talking about—people losing their job and benefits and what they could get. There are things you could do perhaps to auto-enrolment that would give the kind of opportunities for people that we are talking about.

Ed Boyd: There is a number of ways you could do it. We have not yet got to the point to say, “This is specifically how you should do it.” We are at the stage of saying that maybe your question implies that there is an opportunity to do insurance wrappers or auto-enrol. There are a few different approaches that you could take. That is definitely one you would look at; I think that is what we would say.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Q I just wanted to ask you about the interaction with debt. You are talking about people who will potentially have payday loans or whatever. First, will there be legal protection for the savings that they have in respect of those lenders? On the other hand, it may well be the case that the most sensible thing for them to do with their savings, once they get bonuses et cetera, is to pay off some of their debt, especially if it is at a very high annual percentage rate. I wondered what sort of advice there would be.

You mentioned universal credit, where there is quite an important point. The thing that is really good here is that you are getting people into a habit but this is initially clearly for short-term savings, which I think will actually incentivise them more on the realisation that it can help them. It is a matter of how it interacts with the debt dynamic, because a lot of them will be in that area.

Joseph Surtees: That is a very good point because there is a very specific point here about the risk that these accounts are under if somebody who has one either goes insolvent or does not go insolvent but falls into debt. That will mean they are at risk both of having the money taken during insolvency proceedings or taken by a third-party debt order. In the same way that was done with pensions under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, where there was a wraparound of pension savings, it would be useful to have a think about whether the bonus, or even all the money in the account, should be protected if somebody begins to go insolvent, or is threatened by insolvency or their creditors.

On the second point, this is an ongoing conundrum. I know you are seeing Martin Lewis later and he will probably have a slightly different view on this. All of the research and lived experience of organisations such as ours show that, while it is crucial to pay back your debts, people also need some savings or fall-back for sudden shocks. That does not only do their financial position well; it does their mental health position incredibly well. It has been proven by the work of the single financial statement that you can save while paying back debt. Yes, in terms of a purely rational decision, occasionally people saving instead of repaying debt may not be 100% the best thing to do but, in terms of the common-sense best thing to do, I think it should be allowed.

Ed Boyd: Likewise, if someone has a significant level of debt and we say, “We think you should save the full amount because you have just moved into work. You’re working 18 hours at the national living wage on universal credit,” for example—the advice needs to be tailored case by case. That is why I think the training experience of work coaches as they engage with these people is going to be absolutely crucial. You can say, “This is what the advice should be,” but the people who are advising people face to face and saying, “These are your options in terms of savings, paying off debt” are absolutely crucial. It will be really important to get that interface right.

This links with a programme that is being rolled out by the Department for Work and Pensions called universal support, which is the idea that when somebody comes into a jobcentre, they will not just get advice—“This is a job you can go for and we’ll try to push you into that”—but we will try to understand the root causes of why they are out of work. Debt is often one of those causes, so making sure that people have appropriate support for debt is really important.

I do not think I can say this is how it should happen in every situation. Building up savings is important, but you would not encourage someone to save the maximum amount in their scheme they could if they were paying off lots of debs separately. You would encourage them, if they have some spare capacity in terms of income, to use that to pay off the debt as part of the repayment plan. The interface with the work coach becomes very important to make sure that the advice is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

Q Perhaps I can just ask one more question—maybe it is more of a point. Surely one of the issues is that Help to Save will be targeted at many people who will be on benefits, but what has not been offered is a commercial product that treats them exactly the same as some of the people who may read the adverts in the financial press, who may not require help so much. Again, I would have thought it would play to the sector that you are representing that, all of a sudden, those people are in the game as well and being supported.

Bryn Davies: Yes, I do not want to be too much of a wet blanket. I am sure there are some people out there for whom the Help to Save scheme will be of great assistance. I do not think it will be that many—I do not think it will be a lot of help—and many of them are not the people who do not already have a rainy-day fund. Did I get that the right way round? Most of those it will help already have a rainy-day fund. So how is that money actually being used effectively to provide more people with rainy-day funds? We really do not know, from the evidence that is available.

[Ian Blackford]

Q I wonder, Mr Davies, whether you would agree that it is unlikely that there could be a scenario where a saver would be better off in a LISA than they would be in a workplace pension scheme. Could you just comment on the fact that we have not got the final architecture of automatic enrolment, in so far as it affects low-paid workers and the self-employed, and there is a danger in the short term, if this were adopted, that workers could be seduced into taking out LISAs when their best interests would be served through a workplace pension?

Bryn Davies: There is no doubt that the LISA is an attractive offer. People will be attracted by it, although whether they are seduced—that suggests it is against their best interests. It is difficult to know exactly how it will work.

One of my main criticisms of the LISA is that it is a sort of bait-and-switch for a change in pension taxation, because its finances are unsustainable. Those of you who are familiar with the jargon will know that the existing occupational pension scheme taxation is known as EET—exempt, exempt, taxed—so the roll up, the accumulation, is tax free and then it is taxed when the money is paid out. That is compared to an ISA, which is taxed on the way in and the roll up and pay out are tax free. You are either taxed at the beginning or taxed at the end. The oddity about the LISA for a standard rate taxpayer is that there is no tax at all—it is actually EEE—and, as such, I do not think it is a sustainable basis. That is why I am saying it should be looked at as an overall view of how people save for retirement.

A system that was entirely based on the pension LISA system for provision for retirement would be economically unsustainable. In that sense, it is a loss leader. It is not sustainable as a long-term policy, because it is so generous. That is the answer to the question. It is very generous and possibly some people in the short term might do well, depending on the expenses that are charged. We do not know how expensive LISAs are going to be. They could offer a financially attractive deal, but if that is at the cost of destroying an adequate pensions system in the long term, the whole of society will be losers.

It is not difficult to sustain a case that everyone will lose out because they choose a LISA rather than an automatically enrolled pension, particularly if employers choose to contribute to the LISA as well. There is nothing to stop them, if they see it as a way of avoiding the legislation.

[The Chair]

I call James Cartlidge. Four people still want to ask questions and we have nine minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

Q When this measure was originally brought in, the point was made by the previous Chancellor about the lack of consensus for the big, overarching reform, so these sorts of reforms were proposed. I do not think anyone disputes that they are not a complete answer. Of course, another part of it is Help to Save. You talked about many low-income savers. I just wonder what you think the impact will be of Help to Save on those on the really low incomes, who we want to see saving more.

Calum Bennie: We do a quarterly survey called the disposable income index survey and we look at people across the UK, and it is quite clear that particularly the 18 to 25 group are really struggling financially. About a quarter of them are spending more than their income. That is not to say that they are all in debt, because they may have other savings or family support to fall back on. Anything that can be done for them to help with a house purchase, which for young people today is a horrendous situation that they are faced with, compared with what many in this room faced when they were first buying their first house—they need all the help they can get, so Help to Save and the ISA are a boon for them.

[Ian Blackford]

Q You talk about some issues that people have with investing in pensions. Why do you think that is? You described pensions as “broke”. Can you just expand upon what you mean by that?

Calum Bennie: I said that for many people, pensions are broke. The reasons could be manifold. People I talk to have experienced problems, and their parents have had problems with pensions. They were saving in a pension and whatever has happened to it—maybe the company has gone bust, or something like that—they have not got the pension that they thought they would get. For many, final salary schemes have disappeared. The pension age has gone up. Women have perhaps been affected by the age going up quite recently, which they had not expected. It could be all those issues. Pensions have been tinkered with for quite a long time. The amount you could save and the lifetime limit had gone up, and now it has come down. Tax relief is being looked at. It is for all these reasons that some people feel, “I am just not comfortable with saving in a pension.”

[Ian Blackford]

Q A lot of these things, of course, are because of a change in Government policy.

Calum Bennie: Yes.

[Ian Blackford]

Q If you were talking to your clients about the advantages of an auto-enrolment pension, as opposed to looking at a lifetime ISA, how would you explain the different tax incentives?

Calum Bennie: We do not do pensions ourselves, and we do not give advice. We market our products directly to customers and they make their own decision. We do not actually give that advice. They would need to get that advice from a financial adviser.

[Ian Blackford]

Q So you do not sell pensions, but you would benefit directly from the offering of a LISA?

Calum Bennie: Yes.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Q You talk about the focus groups that you run, and there seems to be real interest in the LISA product.

Calum Bennie: ISAs in general. We have not specifically asked our groups about LISAs. Savings in general and the discipline of savings—that is the kind of thing that we have asked people about.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Six more Members want to ask questions, so perhaps everyone could be concise.

[Ian Blackford]

Q Thank you, Mr Wilson. We have talked about the need to save and the success of auto-enrolment. Should we not be targeting those who are being missed out, such as the self-employed and those earning less than £10,000—many women are caught up in that? That is the priority we should address first.

Secondly, when you talk about the exercise people will go through to apply for an ISA and those who can engage in auto-enrolment but choose not to, do you not think there will be an issue of people ending up in a LISA when they would be better off in auto-enrolment?

Jonquil Lowe: Is that for me?

[Ian Blackford]

Both of you.

Jonquil Lowe: Automatic enrolment, yes, is definitely superior. The employer’s subsidy is very valuable so it would be extremely concerning if people switched to lifetime ISAs. The problem for women with caring responsibilities is that they simply do not have a lot of money to save. It is very nice that they can have a bonus if they can save, but if they cannot save, where does that leave them?

The value of unpaid caring is huge. The Office for National Statistics tries to measure it and reckons the value of unpaid childcare is about £320 billion a year and unpaid adult care about £57 billion a year. The figures are huge—about a fifth of GDP. Countries address the problem in different ways. For example, Finland has a home care allowance that recognises the value of unpaid work and gives some income that can be used to buy childcare to release the woman for work, or perhaps for other matters, which might be setting money aside to save for emergencies or later life. Simply saying, “If you save, here’s a tax bonus,” does not solve the problem of the people who cannot afford to save.

Martin Lewis: It doesn’t, and some people should be paying off their debts, which again is a problem I mentioned earlier, especially with the Help to Save scheme. I would stretch Help to Save a little lower and allow younger people to engage in the scheme as well as people who work fewer hours but do work. If I were in charge, I would bring it lower down the net. I agree with you on that point.

The problem about the people who do not auto-enrol going into lifetime ISAs when they should auto-enrol is that products, once they become commercial—effectively Help to Save is not because it is from NS&I, but the lifetime ISA is—are sold, and they are sold to encourage people to engage. Therefore, you have competing sales messages.

That goes back to my original point of mandating messages at each point in the journey towards getting it to try to block people out. The person in charge of lifetime ISA savings at one of the big banks is incentivised by how many lifetime ISA savings he brings in and his staff, some way down the line, will be incentivised—or at least their jobs will be contingent on it—to get people to bring in lifetime ISA savings. They will not have a vested interest in telling you to put money in your pension instead, so you need to make sure that they cannot avoid doing so.

That is a subtle point, but it is about misprioritising. Every single product we have on the market, from credit cards to savings accounts and bank accounts, misprioritises someone’s finances if used incorrectly. That is not a reason for not doing the product, but this is the joyous point: we are creating a new product in our nice internet and app-based era where it is rather easy to mandate people to give certain messages. That is why I suggest you do so, in a way that you could not when everything was individually sold by incentivised sales staff sitting in a closed-room office of a bank branch, as it was 20 years ago. Now, most of these things can be automated, so make them automated.

[Huw Merriman]

Q Mr Lewis, this morning we heard from some of the representatives from the financial services industry, who seemed to think that this was a complex product.

Martin Lewis: They are not very bright people.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

That is a good point. I also recall that back in 2010, I think, the Liberal Democrat manifesto called for a reduction in the number of seats to 500. It is unfortunate that not a single Liberal Democrat is present today to discuss House of Lords reform.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made a lively and hyperbolic speech in which, perhaps somewhat disconcertingly, he demonstrated his expert knowledge of the “Carry On” movies. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) dated Lords reform back to 1719, but as a Tudor historian I can tell him that the issue of membership of the House of Lords and the detested appearance of so-called new-made parvenus such as Thomas Cromwell, the Thomas Audleys and the William Cecils suggest that today’s debate fits very nicely into the finest traditions of history.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) spoke about the issue of retirement. I am pleased that that is already happening, as I mentioned earlier, but I think that if those in the other place have been watching the debate, they may be slightly concerned by his talk of attrition.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned recent comments by the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, about the size of the House of Lords and the fact that it needs to take the initiative on the issue. The Government agree that the House of Lords is too large, but believe that it must be for the Lords themselves to lead the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised the same issue, and I entirely agree with him. He also spoke about his agnosticism on the subject, and highlighted the need to protect historic precedents such as the Salisbury convention. I agree with that as well.

Let us be clear about the motion that we are discussing. This is not just about reform of the House of Lords; this is an attack on a Government’s manifesto commitment that we are determined to introduce—equal-sized constituencies and a reduction in the cost of politics in this House. At a time when many areas of public service have made sensible reductions and savings, the public will not forgive us if we do not put our own house in order.

Let us be clear: this motion does not seek simply to delay the boundary changes and boundary reform. We have already had a delay thanks to a motion, put down and voted on by Labour and Liberal Democrat Opposition Members. If we went into the 2020 general election with things as they are now, we would be elected on data and figures dating back to 2000 in England and to 2001 in Scotland. That status quo is simply unacceptable.

There is also an historical injustice, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath highlighted. There has been a clarion call to address unequal seats for nearly 200 years, and this Government are determined to enact the historic principle of equal seats. At the moment, some seats are almost twice the size of others. For example, North West Cambridgeshire has around 90,000 electors and Manchester Central has around 87,000, compared with Wirral West, which has approximately 54,200, and Kensington, which has 55,400 electors.

The boundary changes will address the unfairness of these current parliamentary boundaries. In Scotland, the independent Boundary Commission publishes its provisional maps and figures tomorrow drawing up the new-sized constituencies. They are provisional data, and I would encourage anybody watching this debate to get involved in the consultation process; it is closing in England and Wales on 5 December. The independent Boundary Commission is currently touring the country and anyone who is interested in constituency boundary reform should get involved.

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

Does the Minister accept that consideration must be given not only to the number of electors, but to geography? Constituencies such as mine in Scotland already have a landmass of 12,000 sq km. When we have constituencies that are so large, how on earth are we supposed to represent and be visible to all our constituents? This is not just about the numbers of electors; it has to be about geography and fairness for the electorate.

[Chris Skidmore]

When legislating on this, the previous Government absolutely recognised that point, and there is special provision in the current boundary proposals published tomorrow to protect Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, even though those constituencies are particularly small in voter numbers, given the wide area that they cover. Those remain unchanged. But let us look at the numbers for Scotland. Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has an electorate of 45,898. In comparison, Linlithgow and East Falkirk has an electorate of 83,593. That is a difference of 37,695. There are almost twice as many electors. I cannot believe the SNP is defending having one elector whose vote is worth twice that of another; that is an historical injustice that this Government are determined to correct.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and whether the Government were going to take mitigating measures to compensate the worst-affected women. He responded that the Scottish Government could use their powers to compensate them. At the end of questions that day, I raised a point of order. I was generous in my choice of language and suggested that perhaps the Secretary of State knew something that we did not—namely, that powers over pensions were coming to Scotland. I asked the Secretary of State, through the Chair, if he would correct the record, knowing full well that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 specifically excludes the possibility of the Scottish Parliament having competence over pensions. I was somewhat enraged to receive a letter from the Secretary of State this afternoon which assures me that his statement was correct. We all know that people spin from time to time, but that is disingenuous to say the least, and the Secretary of State should really come clean and recognise that he has misled the House. I ask for your support as to how we can—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First, we should not say that a Member is disingenuous or that they have misled the House. Let me see if I can be helpful here. Obviously there is a disagreement over the views and the interpretation, and I think that there is a way to deal with this—[Interruption.] Just bear with me. This could be helpful. You know me better than that. Give me a chance. There is a way to deal with this through the Procedure Committee, but it might be better to have a face-to-face debate in Westminster Hall. Why not put in for an Adjournment debate where this can be settled in the best possible way?

[Ian Blackford]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your advice, but there is an important issue here. The Secretary of State is giving a level of competence to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that they do not have, and it is important that we in this House have the opportunity to call him to account. I say clearly that he was wrong and that he should correct the record.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I understand that he says he is wrong; the hon. Gentleman has made that point. What I am saying is that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to put the case and get the answers. That is the way forward. There is also the option of the Procedure Committee, but I think that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to set out categorically where the answer lies.

Sale of Annuities

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There were very few people interested in buying those products, which would have resulted in a very poor deal for customers. The market was not big enough to provide value for money and on that basis we decided not to proceed.

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

On that point, given that we now know that there was an absence of buyers in the market, where was the Government’s consultation before they offered their proposal? We cannot get away from the fact that this was a manifesto commitment from the Government. I welcome the U-turn; they have done the right thing, but why was the matter not brought to the House? Why did we read about it in the media?

Last April the Financial Conduct Authority said that there were concerns about the secondary market in annuities, which would mean

“a significant risk of poor outcomes for consumers”.

The regulator said:

“Annuities are inherently difficult for consumers to value, and consumers who will be able to participate in this market will include a higher proportion of older, more vulnerable consumers.”

We could see that. The FCA came out with that last April. Why has it taken so long for the Government to do the right thing? We recognise some of the concerns for consumers as a result of the pensions freedoms introduced. May we have a full review of the pensions freedom policy?

[Simon Kirby]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising that this is the right thing to do. It is a difficult decision and it is, as ever, a balance between two conflicting viewpoints. My job as a Minister at the Treasury is about making sure that consumers are protected, that industries are regulated sufficiently, and that there is the very best possible deal for customers. Withdrawing this product, which is aimed at many old and vulnerable consumers, is absolutely the right thing to do.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Ian Blackford Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

That interaction has been addressed in the Bill’s impact assessment. There was some concern about the Help to Buy ISA and the interaction with automatic enrolment, but we have seen no evidence of it driving a higher opt-out rate. In fact, the opt-out rate for automatic enrolment is lower than forecast—even on the forecast that was revised down. I note the hon. Gentleman’s concern but I think it has been addressed in the work that we have done.

What is attractive about the lifetime ISA is that people do not have to make an immediate decision about why they are saving this money, which goes back to the hon. Gentleman’s point about people not having to make that decision at an early stage when they cannot see what is ahead.

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

Anyone saving into an auto-enrolment pension will get tax relief up front, but anyone who invests in a lifetime ISA will be making that investment out of taxed income. Does the Minister see the unfairness in that?

[Jane Ellison]

Obviously, we have the Government bonus, which I mentioned, but I go back to the point about this not being an either/or choice; this is about people having potentially complementary products that are for different purposes. This product is not about replacing a pension; it is about giving people a complementary product to help them save for later in life, while keeping open the option of building up money to put towards a house. As we have seen, many hundreds of thousands of people have taken that opportunity with the previous ISA product.

The lifetime ISA can be used by people to get on to the property ladder for the first time and can be put towards a home worth less than £450,000. Through this Bill, from April next year a new, more flexible way to save will be available to people, as one of a number of options.

The Bill also introduces Help to Save, which is about finding a better way to support families who are just about managing but are struggling to build up their savings. All Members will be aware of the research carried out by a number of bodies, particularly the excellent Centre for Social Justice, which estimates that 3 million low-income households have no savings at all. That is not a nice position for anyone to be in: living without having any kind of financial safety net in place and knowing that if they lose their job, they have barely got enough money to pay next month’s rent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). I was interested that he closed by talking about a long-term savings plan for the Government. I suppose the long-term economic plan has crashed and burned, so they need another anachronism that they can use for the future.

SNP Members welcome any reasonable proposals that encourage savings—we will work, where we can, with the UK Government to seek to encourage pension savings—but we very much see the Bill as a missed opportunity for us all to champion what we should be focusing on, which is strengthening pensions savings. Instead we have another wheeze that emanated from the laboratory of ideas of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and his advisers, who had form on constantly tinkering with the savings landscape. The right hon. Gentleman may have gone from the Front Bench, but his memory lingers on with this Bill.

Let us recall what the former Chancellor said in his Budget speech this year:

“too many young people in their 20s and 30s have no pension and few savings. Ask them and they will tell you why. It is because they find pensions too complicated and inflexible, and most young people face an agonising choice of either saving to buy a home or saving for their retirement.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 966.]

The problem was that that assertion was not backed up by evidence, and it was half-baked. Young people under the age of 30 have the lowest level of opt-out rates of all those who have been automatically enrolled into workplace pensions. Department for Work and Pensions research found that for under-30s the opt-out rate is 8%, compared with 9% for 30 to 49-year-olds and 50% for those aged 50 and over. One would have thought that the Chancellor and the Minister had looked at the DWP evidence and recognised that the assertion behind the justification for these measures is quite simply wrong. The fundamental principle, that young people are not saving for a pension when presented with a solution for pension saving such as auto-enrolment, is wrong. After much effort, automatic enrolment has been successful in encouraging young people to save. We must not undermine those efforts by inadvertently encouraging people to opt out and confusing consumers with new, competing products. As has been stated by the likes of Zurich Insurance:

“There is a real danger that the LISA could significantly derail auto-enrolment and reverse the progress made in encouraging people to save for later life.”

I agree with that. Why would we want to undermine pension savings?

Of course we know that the Treasury has flown kites on moving from the existing arrangements for pensions—exempt, exempt, tax—to considering tax, exempt, exempt. That would have a drastic impact on incentivising pension savings, but clearly from the Government’s point of view it would mean higher tax receipts today rather than pensions being taxed on exit. This is a wheeze from the previous Chancellor to deliver higher taxation income today, rather than taxing consumption in the future—a modern day reverse Robin Hood.

Is it not the case that when this idea was kicked into the long grass along came the Chancellor with proposals to achieve the same ends through the backdoor? Is this the first step to moving towards tax, exempt, exempt? If it is, the Government should come clean. If they do so, we on the Scottish National party Benches will vigorously oppose it, because it would amount to an attack on pension savings. We should recall, after all, that it was Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, who raided pension schemes with his dividend tax changes—an attack that seriously undermined defined benefit pension schemes in particular.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that what Gordon Brown did when he was Prime Minister—taxing pension schemes—was catastrophic? I know that, because I had a pension scheme and stopped paying into it.

[Ian Blackford]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that was the beginning of the end for defined benefit pension schemes in this country. At the time, just about every company in the FTSE 100 had a defined benefit pension scheme. There are hardly any today. My criticism of what the Government are doing with the Bill is that they are once again undermining pension saving. I will come on to the facts of the matter. We cannot get away from this: anybody saving into a pension does so out of pre-tax income. Anybody investing in the LISA will be doing so out of taxed income. That is unfair and unjust. As I mentioned earlier, this is more about a wheeze for the Government to generate taxation income. It is wrong and they should not be doing it without proper incentives for the young people they are targeting.

We would resist any further attempts to undermine pension saving and, specifically, to change the tax status of pension savings. That would be little more than an underhand way of driving up tax receipts—sweet talking workers to invest after-tax income in LISAs when their interests are best served by investing in pensions. We have considerable challenges in ensuring that we take appropriate action and provide the right kind of leadership to encourage pension savings above all else. That is not happening under this Conservative Government. Pension savings are the most tax-efficient arrangement for savers and that is what we ought to prioritise

We also need to revisit the issue of pension tax relief to make it fairer to pension savers. Many commentators and providers, such as Zurich, have suggested that a flat rate of pension tax relief could increase saving among low earners. While ensuring pensions remain an attractive investment for higher earners, it would be inherently fairer. Coupled with auto-enrolment, it would give a powerful boost to the pensions of millions of workers and help the vast majority of people to save more for retirement. It would also end the complexity of the current regime and set tax relief at a sustainable level for the longer term. That kind of approach rather flies in the face of what the Minister has signed off in the impact assessment, which states:

“The government could have done nothing more, relying on existing tax incentives to promote saving among younger people and working families on low income. However, this would have failed to provide the necessary level of support for those who are unable to use existing support to plan and save for their future.”

This is bunkum. Tax relief can be addressed, as I have said, but we must also take into account the fact that a review of auto-enrolment is due in 2017. We can strengthen auto-enrolment to deliver inclusion and encourage pension saving. We want to work with the Government to strengthen auto-enrolment and pension savings, which are the most efficient way for young people to save.

Just today, as we debate the Bill, the Financial Times has published an article highlighting new analysis on pension savings conducted by Aon. The analysis concluded that UK pension savings have a massive deficit of £11 billion a year. A poll of 2,000 pension savers indicates that only 16% of workers are saving enough to maintain their standard of living when they stop work. Why on earth do we want to take attention away, through the Bill the Government are bringing forward, from pension savings? Why are we not focusing on what we should be doing: fixing the problems in the pension industry? That is the priority of those of us on the SNP Benches.

The Aon analysis suggests that members of defined contribution schemes on average need to pay an extra £1,400 a year to achieve a decent retirement income. That is what we should be addressing in this Chamber here tonight. My message to the Government is this: let us all work together to tackle the under-investment in pension savings, to deal with the many challenges we face, and to enhance the attractions of pension savings. That is the priority. Today, too many people are excluded from workplace pensions.

I commend the introduction of auto-enrolment, but recognise that more needs to be done to enhance auto-enrolment and seek to offer affordable solutions to the low-paid, women and the self-employed who, to use the Prime Minister’s term, have been left behind. We need to tackle the issue of those who are currently excluded, such as the 20% of workers who earn less than £10,000 a year. We need to make sure we have an inclusive approach to pension savings that works for all workers.

The average value of conventional ISAs held by those aged between 25 and 34 is £5,186. The annual allowance for the lifetime ISA as proposed is £4,000, so from experience of ISAs this question needs to be addressed: who exactly will benefit? It looks like yet another policy to benefit the rich who can afford to save at such a level and therefore get the full benefits of the Government bonus. So much for the sermon from the Prime Minister about delivering policies for those left behind. It looks to us more like the same old policies for the benefit of the wealthy. When we look at the news today we see that the UK is looking to spend billions of pounds for the City to access the single market—and we should not be surprised. It is yet another case of the poor subsidising the rich.

We need to address the unintended consequences of quantitative easing, which has driven down yields, moderating expectations of future growth for pension funds and substantially increasing the deficit for many defined pension schemes, as the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned. If we add to that the decline in annuity rates, which is cutting expectations of pensioner income, it means that savers have to increase their contributions to defined contribution schemes. This makes for a challenging environment for pension savers, which needs to be addressed.

On 11 July, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), said that

“there is a very real systemic issue with DB pension schemes that we need to look at, and my Department will be discussing it further in the months ahead.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 10.]

Since that statement, there has been silence from the Government. Where is the response to the fundamental challenges for today’s pensions and, as some might argue, the crisis in both defined benefit and defined contribution schemes?

We know of the significant factors affecting the BHS and British Steel schemes, and we know that hundreds of other schemes are facing significant deficits. Rather than seeing the Government face up to these challenges and the threat to the many beneficiaries of the schemes, we see a missed opportunity to tackle what ought to be the priorities. When will the Government respond in detail to what the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admitted, which we all know to be the case? I give the Minister the opportunity to intervene and tell us what the Government have done since the announcement of the previous Secretary of State. Where is the Government’s response? What do they have to say about the deficit on defined pension schemes? I see Government Members on the Front Bench looking down, but we need answers. What we get from this Government is no action.

[Jane Ellison]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that we had DWP questions earlier today, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to put his question then.

[Ian Blackford]

That was a politic answer. I cannot help but remark that I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions a question earlier today, which was enlightening in itself. I asked a question about the WASPI women. I raised a specific point, saying that the SNP had put proposals in front of this Government as we were asked to do. We said that we could deal with the WASPI issue by spending £8 million, which, by the way, the Government could afford to spend because there is a surplus of nearly £30 billion sitting in the national insurance fund. What was the answer we got from the Secretary of State? It was to get the Scottish Government to do that. What he failed to realise is that this House has not given the Scottish Parliament the responsibility for pensions. Why not do that now, then? The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government would certainly take responsibility for pensions and for pensioners, which this Government are walking away from.

Nothing is being done by this Government. They are like rabbits caught in headlights. That is exactly what we got when the Financial Secretary intervened just now. This is a Government who have no answers to the real issues and the real problems that affect us in the pension landscape. They have been caught doing nothing in the face of systemic risk, which the Government themselves recognise. The Financial Secretary turned around and said, “It is not for me, but for the Department for Work and Pensions”. Well, I am sorry, but she is a Minister of the Government, and this is a Government responsibility. She should be coming to this place with answers.

We also need to recognise that although this Bill will help some savers, it does little to help those who cannot afford to save for later life. Of course, we have had the benefit of the Work and Pensions Select Committee holding an inquiry into the effect of the lifetime ISA on auto-enrolment. Evidence from the Association of British Insurers stated:

“Presented as a choice, no employee will be better off saving into a Lifetime ISA than they would under automatic enrolment. This is due to the loss of employer contributions.”

A recent Standard Life analysis shows that the typical gain from tax breaks and minimum employer top-ups to a qualifying workplace pension for a basic rate taxpayer is between 70% and 85%, compared with the return of 25% from a LISA. That is the con that this Government are trying to inflict on the people of this country. The long-term cost of forgoing annual employer contributions worth 3% of salary by saving into a LISA instead of a workplace pension would be substantial. For a basic rate taxpayer, the impact would be savings of roughly one third less by the age of 60. For example, an employee earning £25,000 per annum and saving 4% of their income each year would see a difference in excess of £53,000. After 42 years, someone saving through a pension scheme would have a pot worth £166,289.99 at a growth rate of 3%. Under a LISA at the same growth rate the value would be £112,646.75. Is the Minister going to defend this?

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the advantages of pension saving over the new LISA, but does he share my concern that the real beneficiary of the LISA will not be people on low and middle incomes, but exceptionally rich people looking for a tax-efficient way to save very large amounts in a year?

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Those who are already investing large amounts into pension schemes and perhaps approaching the cap will be turning around and saying, “Thank you very much.” This is not a policy for low and middle-income workers; this is a policy for the rich. It is the same old thing from this Tory Government who learn nothing. No wonder they are so out of touch in Scotland and no wonder that they have only one Member of Parliament in Scotland when they do not do the right thing for the pensioners in our country.

There are clear risks for young people in taking the wrong decisions if they do not get appropriate advice—something that is lacking from these proposals. Will the Government make it clear that young people will be advised of the likely outcomes of opting for a LISA over pension savings? If not, why not?

The SNP is supportive of any initiative that promotes savings for later life, but the LISA is simply a gimmick that benefits only those who can afford to save to the levels demanded by the Government to get the bonus. Help to Save is another example. We agree that working to encourage savings is welcome, but in this case again, the UK Government have only scratched the surface rather than really targeting those who are struggling to plan for emergencies or later life. Individuals eligible for Help to Save have only limited resources for saving by definition, and they will now have more difficult choices to make between medium-term savings and longer-term aspirations.

The very fact that the Government expect the policy to cost only £70 million in 2020-21 implies that the Government top-up will, on average, be only £20 per eligible individual in that year. Yes, £20—that is what this Government are proposing in this Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the view that Help to Save is poorly targeted, and it questioned the purpose of the scheme, stating:

“There is also a deeper and critical question about which groups are really ‘under-saving’. The key justification for giving a household extra money only if it places funds in a savings account, rather than giving it extra money regardless and letting the household decide what to do with it, is that we have reason to believe that the household is saving less than is ‘appropriate’ given its circumstances.”

The charity StepChange found through its work with poorer families and those with existing problem debt that four in 10 people struggling to save experience an income shock, such as a broken boiler or car repairs, at least every six months; that 60% of those facing an income shock turned to borrowing; and that a third of them cut back on essentials such as food to cover the costs. It found that half a million families could avoid problem debt if they had £1,000 of savings.

Responding to the Government’s consultation on Help to Save, the charity had three concerns: the proposed two-year period over which a Help to Save account will run may disincentivise applicants, and the Government should think “very carefully” about the way in which the scheme is advertised, in order to minimise a potential problem caused by the perception of a rigid two-year account length; the Treasury should amend the eligibility criteria so that those aged under 25 who work at least 30 hours a week can apply for a Help to Save account; and the Treasury should look closely at the debt-collection and insolvency implications of the scheme, and the Government should protect money in Help to Save accounts from third-party debt orders or insolvency proceedings. The charity concluded:

“At the very least any bonus accrued should be protected.”

Once again, we have seen a missed opportunity to tackle the pension saving deficit head on. While helping some, the Bill does little for those who cannot afford to save for later life. The Government must be much more ambitious if they are to deliver real dignity in retirement. We do not intend to oppose the Bill tonight, for which I am sure the House will be grateful, but we will seek to deal with the missed opportunities and to strengthen the Bill in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend has touched on an interesting issue. What she has said reflects one of the observations made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Over the past three or four decades people have, perhaps, been infantilised in respect of the financial choices that they make, and politicians in the House of Commons may have sought to make their choices for them. Personally, I would like the opportunity to decide between a lifetime ISA, a pension and a normal ISA, for instance, but then I am a chartered accountant of moderate skill—deeply moderate; I resigned on the day I qualified for exactly that reason—but I recognise that plenty of people feel confused and are unable to do so. We have taken the power away from them over the years, and we must start to reverse that. We must either put choice back into their hands, or educate them so that they can make those choices in the future. The financial world is becoming ever more complicated, and if people are to do well out of it—particularly those on lower incomes—they will need to have that kind of knowledge.

Another reason why people should take an interest in acquiring assets rather than the mere ins and outs of their monthly incomes is the fact that a number have missed out, recently in particular, on what could have been a big upswing in their wealth. Brexit has seen a massive rise in the stock market, and anyone who has had stocks and shares over the last couple of months will have done extremely well. Similarly, the housing market has risen prodigiously over the last three or four years.

[Ian Blackford]

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there has been a massive 16% decline in the value of sterling over the last couple of months? Moreover, the fact that the market has risen as much as it has is due, quite simply, to the overseas earnings of United Kingdom companies. It is not that the world thinks the United Kingdom has become a more investable case; indeed, some would argue that it has become a basket case.

[Kit Malthouse]

I entirely agree that overseas earnings are rising. That is why the stock market has increased so significantly, and I think that is a good thing. I am proud to say that I voted “out”. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks should be the level of the pound, but I think it should be at a level that increases our overseas earnings, means that people will re-shore manufacturing—because it is now more expensive for goods to be made overseas—and helps our exporters. I cannot see that that is anything other than beneficial for a country that is carrying a massive current account deficit.

The point that I am trying to make, however, is that 40 or perhaps 30 years ago many more people were investing in the stock market by buying shares in British Gas and all the privatised industries, and those people would have been benefiting from the present upswing. I am proud to ask my postman how his shares are doing every time I see him, and I should like to be able to say the same to most people on low incomes.

[Ian Blackford]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his postman how much his holiday will cost him next year. There is a real problem for the United Kingdom, which is that inflation is now going to increase. We have already seen the impact of the likes of Unilever seeking to pass on 10% price increases. At a time when wage growth in the United Kingdom is limited, we have choked off next year’s consumption. That is the effect of Brexit. This is not about wealth; it is about an economy that has been damaged by the Brexiters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but he should bear in mind the fact that opt-out rates were expected to be 25% and are averaging 9% so far. The Government’s expectations about opt-out rates have therefore, happily, been proved wrong. He is right to say that the under-30s will become the over-30s, but we should all be trying to encourage those people to stay in and build up their savings through the pensions scheme, rather than introducing a competitive product that could, for various marketing reasons, seem more attractive and therefore divert people of all ages from the good and noble cause, which I think he supports, of building up more savings for their retirement.

[Ian Blackford]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that auto-enrolment has been an enormous success, and that one reason for that success has been the relatively low opt-out rates? Does he also agree, however, that there is more to be done to ensure that we include low-paid workers, particularly women and the self-employed? That should be the focus, but the tragedy of the Bill is that it deflects attention from what we should be doing—namely, incentivising pension saving.

[Richard Graham]

That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that auto-enrolment is not good for the self-employed, and there are other aspects of it, including women’s savings, that could be improved. Yes, there has been success, but my “yes” is a cautious one. After all, auto-enrolment has not been going for very long. The real test will be over the next couple of years when up to 4 million people could come into the scheme, taking it from roughly 6.9 million savers at the moment to more than 10 million fairly soon. We will have to see whether they come in with the same enthusiasm as did those who work for larger employers. My point is that introducing the lifetime ISA at this stage, before we know how smaller employers and their employees are going to react, risks undermining the success of auto-enrolment so far.

In 2005, the Pensions Commission described pensions, and the tax relief on pensions, as

“poorly understood, unevenly distributed, and the cost is significant.”

It was absolutely right. The cost to the Treasury is £34 billion a year, and it receives back some £13 billion in tax on pensions, so there is a huge cost involved. I am pretty sure that that is why the Treasury is rightly trying to shape a savings policy that is both good for individuals and not so expensive for taxpayers or for the Treasury as the intermediary. I would like to see a much more co-ordinated effort by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to look closely at the existing range of savings offerings, pensions included, to see how they can be rationalised in order to come up with a simpler, less expensive method of encouraging people to save.

It is interesting that the online information sheet on the lifetime ISA does not mention the fact that contributions come from someone’s salary after they have paid tax. It also strongly urges people to

“use it to save for retirement”.

That is exactly what we would expect people to do with a pensions product, so the concept that the lifetime ISA is not competitive with auto-enrolment and other pensions offerings is slightly disingenuous. Others have made the point that it is competitive with auto-enrolment and therefore offers significant potential for many of our constituents. Let me quote briefly from one or two of those who have highlighted this issue.

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which used to be called the National Association of Pension Funds, illustrates my point that all pensions are now, rightly, considered to be savings products. It comments:

“We look forward to working with the Government to help make sure that the Lifetime ISA does help younger people build up their savings.”

It goes on to say that it is important to ensure that

“the regulation on charges and governance of the Lifetime ISA are comparable to those for pensions, which have been reviewed to make sure they offer savers good value”.

That refers to the cap on charges and the increased governance. The association is implicitly recognising that this product will be considered by consumers as an alternative to saving. Indeed, former pensions Minister Steve Webb says:

“There is a real danger that the new product will mean that many young people will not start saving for their retirement until their thirties”

because that option is available to them through the lifetime ISA.

It is also interesting that the Association of British Insurers, Zurich and Hargreaves Lansdown have all expressed concern. One of the points raised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies is exactly the same point that I made in an article earlier today in which I referred to the lack of clarity over the extent to which there will be new savings, as against the shifting of existing funds by people who have already saved in ISAs. We must recognise the fact that 21 million people have invested in ISAs. That is not a small body of people. It is not a narrow cohort consisting exclusively of the very rich, for example. If savings are recycled and 80% of the people who put money into a cash ISA in 2014-15 recycle their money into a lifetime ISA to get the 25% Government bonus, that would not necessarily demonstrate a success for the Government in terms of bringing in new savers and people who would not otherwise have the chance of getting on to the housing ladder. Rather, it would demonstrate that people who already have savings are being given an opportunity to increase the return on those savings, and that higher-rate earners will have an opportunity to provide lifetime ISAs for their children or grandchildren.

It would help if the Minister clarified what impact assessment the Treasury has carried out. How much money does it expect to come in from new savers? How much does it expect to be recycled from existing ISA-holders? Who will be the beneficiaries of the lifetime ISA? My concern is that the main beneficiaries of the vast weight of the £850 million that this will cost the Treasury and therefore the taxpayer will be people who already earn quite a lot, or their children, and that the benefits will not reach the many, even though that is the intention behind the Bill.

I have tried to address some of the issues and unintended consequences that could arise from the Bill. Hargreaves Lansdown has written a useful paper on simplifying ISAs and pensions, in which it proposes a number of changes to ISAs. It is worth flagging them up today. It proposes: consolidating six different types of ISA into one; limiting the cost to the Exchequer of the Government top-up to the lifetime ISA; simplifying ISA decision making for investors; reducing the administrative burden for the industry; retaining the help-to-buy element of the lifetime ISA in one simple ISA product; and eliminating the risk that the ISA will undermine pension saving. It goes on to make a similar number of recommendations on pensions as well. The last point about eliminating the risk that the LISA will undermine pension saving is the one to which I keep returning because it is possible to do these things in a different way.

The Pensions Policy Institute found that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, US and Singapore—all countries that broadly follow Anglo-Saxon approaches to finance and investment—allow early access from the same product used for pension saving. That is critical because it means that people do not have to choose between a LISA or auto-enrolment and that they can decide whether they want to save to get on to the housing ladder or to save for their retirement through the same product. It would be a major achievement of this Government and Treasury and DWP Ministers if they could work together to rationalise the structure of pensions and savings so that individual consumers can access the same product for different reasons without having to subscribe separately. That would eliminate the main concern of many about the unintended consequence of the LISA directly and negatively impacting auto-enrolment. That is why I will certainly not be voting against the Government but will abstain from voting on the Bill this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I understand that clarification and I will touch on that topic in my speech.

Finally, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who supports the Government’s proposals, spoke about his experiences as a self-employed person and said that the proposal is not a supplementary pension but a means of saving.

Labour welcomes the sentiments expressed today on both sides of the House about the need to address savings overall. In general, anything that allows more people to save for the future is to be welcomed. Helping younger people and those on low incomes to save is a particularly legitimate and worthy objective, and the Government are right to consider policies to incentivise it. The majority of people on low incomes or in precarious work—categories sadly growing in Conservative Britain—are far from being in a position to save. Six years of Tory failures and austerity has led to many not knowing from where the next pound will come week in, week out. The Government’s clueless approach to exiting Europe simply compounds the problem on a macroeconomic level.

How is it possible for people to save when it is hardly possible for many to live properly on a weekly basis? How can a person save for the future when they can barely get through the day? The scandal of low retirement savings for the less well-off is an indictment on any notion of a cohesive society. One in seven pensioners lives in poverty and a further 1.2 million have incomes just above the poverty line. Distributional analysis by the Women’s Budget Group shows that single female pensioners will experience a whopping 20% drop in their living standards. It is unconscionable that people who have worked hard and contributed to society are forced to spend their final years in hardship and insecurity. We agree that there are problems that need to be solved urgently but the TUC states:

“Products such as… the forthcoming Lifetime ISA are disconnected from the world of work and prioritise goals other than retirement saving.”

As for the lifetime ISA, it is hard to see how its introduction even begins to tackle the problems to which I have just referred; not only does it represent a missed opportunity to build on the success of automatic enrolment, as those on the SNP Front Bench have said, but its introduction could serve as a distraction to tackling the real issues at hand. It misdirects valuable resources, as the money the Government are spending on this scheme is likely to benefit mostly those on higher incomes, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions. It also needlessly complicates the pensions and savings landscape—an arena already fraught with complexity. Perhaps most dangerously, it has the potential to undermine the emerging consensus that a pension ISA approach would be detrimental in the round. Indeed, it has the potential to introduce just such an approach through the back door. That is a concern and we are seeking assurances from the Government that it is not doing that.

In the months leading up to the Budget, the concept of replacing the existing systems of pensions tax relief with an ISA-style approach was widely debated and almost universally rejected as damaging to people’s retirement prospects. I wonder, as do many others, whether, after enduring an embarrassing rebuff, the Tories are back again with the same intent under the guise of this Bill. Many in the pensions industry have described the LISA as a “stealth” move towards pension ISAs. The Work and Pensions Committee has said that the Government are marketing the LISA as a pension product and there is a high risk that people will opt out of their workplace pension as a result. Let me be perfectly clear: people will not be better off saving into an ISA as opposed to a workplace pension. The Committee found that

“For most employees the decision to save in a LISA instead of through a workplace pension would be detrimental to their retirement savings.”

[Ian Blackford]

Can the hon. Gentleman shed some light on why he thinks the Government would introduce a Bill that would make people worse off as a result of investing in an ISA than they would be if they invested in a pension? Does he not think that that is an abdication of responsibility by the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

The answer to the first question is that I do not know and the answer to the second is yes.

I have to give credit where credit is due, because the Conservative party has a particular talent for conjuring up political smokescreens and opportunistic gimmicks: it has given us a national living wage, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a living wage; we were promised a “big society”, yet the Government set about systematically undermining the notion of a cohesive society; and we were cynically assured by the late, unlamented Chancellor that we were “all in it together”. One thing I do acknowledge is that post-Brexit, given the poor performance of the Ministers responsible for negotiating it, we will all be in it together—and it won’t smell very nice. In the meantime, the Government continue unfairly and unjustly to condemn working people and vulnerable groups to pay for the Government’s failed austerity obsession—and now it is time for the Government to mess up pensions. Do they never learn from their mistakes? Are they so ideologically driven that they simply cannot admit that they get things wrong? These are mistakes, I might add, that others pay for. Have the Government not done enough damage to the prospects of hundreds of thousands of WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—pensions without thinking that through? Yet again, they have not thought about the potential for millions more to be affected.

When former Conservative pensions Ministers are referring to the LISA as a “Trojan horse” and warning that such “superficial attractions” will “destroy pensions”, alarm bells begin to ring on the Opposition Benches, if not on the other side of the House. Given this scenario, common sense demands ask that we ask this: are we now being presented with a savings Bill that will fundamentally undermine proper planning for pensions for the future? As many others have pointed out, the LISA is a sort of pension and not a sort of pension—it is both and not at the same time—and neither will it necessarily last for a lifetime. This seemingly opportunistically designed product risks even more pensioner poverty, which people can ill afford at any time, let alone in their later years. Moreover, the Tories’ approach of transferring responsibility and risk from the collective to individuals will not work, especially as the incomes of the poorest, the majority of whom are women, are being squeezed by public sector cuts and the roll-out of universal credit.

The Labour party is motivated and inspired by the real principle and value that we are all in it together—this is not a slogan and a soundbite, but a truism. We know that the majority of people are significantly disadvantaged by an individualised, dog-eat-dog approach, as opposed to a collective system that has fairness at its core. Today, people struggle with wages that are still lower than they were before the global financial crisis in 2008. There are now 800,000 people on zero-hours contracts and half a million people in bogus self-employment, and nearly 4 million of our children are living in poverty. Labour’s economic strategy is committed to tackling wage stagnation, particularly among those at the lower end, so that they are able and have the capacity to save for their future as well as living life now.

As the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said:

“The pensions system that I want to see ensures dignity in retirement, and a proper reflection of the contribution that older people have made, and continue to make, to our society.”

Labour Members would like the Government categorically, unequivocally and clearly to assure the public that this Bill is not a veiled attack on pensions as we know them.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

First, let me thank everyone here today for contributing to this interesting debate. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in her opening remarks, the measures contained in this Bill are really important priorities for this Government, and both Help to Save and the LISA offer people in this country a new and effective option for how they save their money. Help to Save focuses on giving more support to those on low incomes. It will give a 50% boost to those who can get into the saving habit of putting aside a small, regular amount into their account each month. The LISA focuses on younger people. It is an account that will offer genuine choice and flexibility, not to mention—

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Simon Kirby]

I will give way, but I had hoped to address the hon. Gentleman’s many comments later on.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to the Minister, but this is an important point. Will he explain to the House why he thinks it is right to encourage people to invest in the lifetime ISA rather than in a pension, given that a pension will give a better return, as has been demonstrated in the figures, such as the one I cited of a 32% difference over a 40-year period? Why are the Government being misguided and prioritising ISAs over pensions?

[Simon Kirby]

I thank the hon. Gentleman so much for that intervention, but the Government are not doing what he suggests. We are offering people a choice, and these two schemes are complementary and serve very different purposes. The genuine choice and flexibility to which I alluded are at the core of this Bill, but now let me deal with the specific points raised today.

The hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) mentioned credit unions. The Government recognise that many credit unions were interested in offering accounts, but it was not clear that a multiple provider model would guarantee national coverage for the scheme. We will continue to explore further options for credit unions to support delivery of the scheme, and I am sure that we will have that conversation in more detail as the Bill progresses.

The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles talked of this scheme being a substitute for benefits, but it is about increasing the financial resilience of low-income families so that if they are hit with an unexpected bill or if someone loses their job, they will have money for a rainy day. If something unexpected happens to their income, they will have savings to bridge the gap. She also asked why two years was chosen. This is the period of time needed to encourage account holders to develop a regular savings habit—a habit all too lacking in many people, especially younger people. I reiterate that the amount is up to £50 a month. People may not be able to afford that amount, but any regular saving is something that all of us should encourage.

I wish to clarify one point. The hon. Lady mentioned that there would be an additional penalty if people took money out of a lifetime ISA. An additional charge will be applied to reflect the long-term nature of the account, and that will act as a disincentive to people removing money unless it is essential or if there is a very important change in circumstances to be taken into account.

I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his contribution. Our constituents are looking forward to the introduction of these products, and I agree with him that they contain significant incentives. He also mentioned the abolition of savings tax. It is worth putting it on the record that 95% of people have no savings tax to pay thanks to the new personal savings allowance.

The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) mentioned a smorgasbord of issues, a few of which I shall pick up on. He said that women were disadvantaged by automatic enrolment. Before it began, 65% of women employed full time in the private sector did not have a workplace pension; as of 2015, that had fallen to 35%. He said that a lifetime ISA was just for the rich, but it is for anyone between the ages of 18 and 40. They can open it and save into it until they are 50. The maximum annual contribution that an individual can make is £4,000. People can pay less than that and still enjoy the Government bonus. We expect that a large majority of those who use the lifetime ISA will be basic rate taxpayers.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned StepChange. Well, this is what StepChange has said:

“We welcome Government recognition of the need for a savings scheme aimed at those on low incomes. Our research shows that if every household in the UK had £1,000 in rainy day savings, 500,000 would be protected from falling into problem debt.”

He also mentioned the Association of British Insurers, which said in August:

“The industry supports the Lifetime ISA as a vehicle to help people save, in addition to a workplace pension.”

I hope that is fairly clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked very sensible questions and made some thoughtful points. In particular, he asked about the limit of £50 a month. Individuals saving £50 a month for four years will earn a generous bonus of £1,200. It is probably an appropriate limit for people on low incomes, at whom the scheme is targeted. There has to be a ceiling.

The hon. Member for Harrow West asked about payroll deduction. I have to thank him for a very sensible and measured contribution. There is no reason why payroll deduction cannot take place. I cannot make a commitment to him today, but I can confirm that I am happy to see whether there is more that we can do in that area.