Loan Protection Gap

Debate between Andrew Love and John McDonnell

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I belatedly welcome the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to her new position as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. She served with some distinction for four years on the Treasury Committee. As a continuing member of the Committee, I congratulate her on her appointment and welcome her to what I think is her first Adjournment debate.

More than 80% of borrowers have no form of protection to safeguard their loans, and the number of those in that position is on the increase. The disparity between the number of vulnerable consumers who need loan protection and those with an insurance policy is referred to as the loan protection gap. In this debate, I intend to raise five key issues involving loan protection insurance policies. First, I will draw attention to the significant minority of vulnerable consumers who continue to experience the damaging effects of excessive debt on their work, health and family life. Given that the squeeze on real incomes continues at a time of increasing consumer expenditure, the problem is likely to intensify, especially for those on the bottom half of the income scale.

There are any number of surveys confirming the squeeze on living standards. I will refer to just three. The first, a 2013 study carried out by the university of Birmingham on financial inclusion, showed that the real value of wages in 2012 had fallen back to 2003 levels. In this year’s “Green Budget”, the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that living standards have declined over the past five years, and the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent forecaster, confirmed in its recent budget report that living standards will not recover to 2008 levels until 2018. Incidentally, in relation to loan protection, the OBR also forecast that the level of household debt will increase each year over the forecast period to 2018.

Secondly, I will show that the payment protection insurance mis-selling scandal has led to a collapse in trust and confidence in protection products and that, as a result, such policies have been withdrawn from the market by all but the very small, bespoke, specialist providers. PPI mis-selling is the biggest financial services scandal ever. It has affected every major bank, £13 billion has been paid in compensation and the bill is still rising. I asked the House of Commons Library to survey the market for protection policies. I would never call it a scientific study, but it gives a representative idea of what has happened in the marketplace. Unsurprisingly, the findings are somewhat depressing. PPI is seen as toxic, with little or no prospect of the main players re-entering the market. As a result, provision has declined significantly. Some policies are still provided, but mostly by small specialist providers.

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

One of those specialist providers is CUNA Mutual. CUNA is working with the largest credit union in my area, Plane Saver, which brings together British Airways staff and has been running for a number of years, and has developed what seems to be a way forward that provides at least an element of protection: the debt waiver system, at least for credit union services. Has my hon. Friend come across that? I would welcome discussions with the Minister, maybe involving a visit to my constituency to meet the Plane Saver group to examine this potential way forward.

[Mr Love]

I have indeed heard of the Plane Saver credit union, and I have been in touch with CUNA Mutual as well. I will talk later about the debt waiver system that they have introduced; it is one of a selection of protection products that should be available more widely in the market but are not. I will discuss some of the reasons why.

Payment protection insurance is currently provided only by small, specialist providers. As a consequence of that and of the lack of competition in the market, it has increased in cost. At a time when incomes are being squeezed, expensive income protection policies are an unwelcome additional cost for consumers.

Thirdly, surveys confirm that financial insecurity is on the rise. At the same time, protection products are totally absent from the market. The result has been the creation of a protection gap. Is the Minister aware of those developments? What steps are being taken to address this clear market failure?

In 2013, CUNA Mutual carried out a survey of financial insecurity in more than 2,000 households. Its findings were stark: two out of three were concerned about losing their job; six out of 10 were anxious about their financial affairs; 20% would find themselves in financial difficulties within a month of losing their job, rising to 30% in some regions of the country; 44% claimed that they were cutting back on heating and 59% on food, simply to make ends meet. Other surveys confirm that the number of borrowers safeguarding new loans or income has collapsed to less than 1%. Taking all those changes into account—I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my view—the Treasury, as a matter of urgency, should conduct a review of the state of consumer protection in credit markets to determine a plan of action to close the protection gap.

Fourthly, with traditional income protection policy tarnished, what new models of loan protection can fill the gap? Guidance was provided some time ago by the Financial Services Authority on a suite of transparent, fair and affordable lending policies, but it has had little impact on the market. The Government must show leadership by promoting the introduction of policies that will provide solutions to the protection gap. CUNA Mutual suggests that 95% of mortgages are currently sold to customers without any insurance.

This issue is not just about consumer protection. In a recent survey, 70% of respondents said that they do not trust the banking and financial services sector. Loan protection can act as a form of stimulus to get lending going again. The credit union mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has experienced a boost in the number of mortgages due to the protection policy that it provides.

On the positive side, there have been some modest developments. In 2011, CUNA Mutual asked the FSA to test the debt waiver before CUNA took it up. It tested successfully and, as I will discuss, it has been introduced in a number of mutual organisations. In its 2013 report on loan protection, ResPublica, the well-known think tank, recommended that the Government should encourage the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, the two banks with major public involvement, to adopt the debt waiver. I concur with that recommendation, but little has been done to follow up on it.

Fifthly, the mutual sector is leading the way in tackling the protection gap through the use of the debt waiver in its lending. This shifts the emphasis on to the lender to indemnify the loan, rather than placing the emphasis on the customer to insure their ability to pay. What steps are being taken to encourage the financial services industry to follow the guidance of the FSA regarding the debt waiver and other similar products, so as to help to tackle the protection gap?

The debt waiver is relatively new to the UK, where it has been introduced in a number of organisations, but it has a long and successful track record since the 1930s in north America. Incidentally, it was introduced at the height of the great depression, to help try to restore confidence among the public in lending. In its 2013 report, ResPublica recommended that the regulator fast-track the debt waiver and other similar products, but nothing much seems to have happened. Three mutuals, including the one referred to by my hon. Friend, have introduced the debt waiver very successfully, in one case providing coverage for accident and sickness for up to one year, through the debt waiver, at no cost to the borrower. In my view, that is a very good deal for the consumer.

However, all these things are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg when set against the 95% of people who simply do not have any coverage at the moment. That is the argument; that is the need; and that is what I hope to get a response on from the Minister.

In conclusion, the challenge for the Government, the financial services industry and indeed all stakeholders is to recognise the dramatic impact that mis-selling PPI has had on the market for protection policies; to quantify the resulting loan protection gap; and, most importantly, to challenge the industry—all those lenders out there—to take the necessary action to tackle the gap. I hope that the Minister will concur and will take steps to address this problem.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Andrew Love and John McDonnell

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

That is particularly important given that we are in if not a recession, a period of economic inactivity in which the economy has been scraping along the bottom. We have 2.5 million unemployed, of whom nearly 1 million are young people and 1.7 million people are in enforced short or part-time working. As Richard Wilkinson demonstrated, during the ’80s, the social psychological response was either fight or fright: fright meant depression, alcohol and drugs, and fight often meant violence on our streets and, unfortunately, an increase in violent crime.

We should be addressing those issues now, as we pass through this economic recession, which might last some time. It behoves us, as we discuss taxation and if taxation can play a role in addressing inequality, to examine the matter in detail. The amendment simply tries to emphasise that inequality is an important issue that has to be addressed and that all legislation needs to be reviewed and assessed in the light of its impact and effectiveness in addressing inequality. The amendment therefore calls for a report to be brought back to the House addressing that matter. In that way, we might at least acquire an understanding of the impact of taxation policies on inequality, even if we might disagree on specific taxation policies.

[Mr Love]

I associate myself with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and its focus on inequality. I want to pick up on that focus, and on the discussion we had a few moments ago about the Government’s claim that we are all in this together. I shall subject that to scrutiny through amendment 13, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). As my right hon. Friend said, and as has been said by those on our Front Bench, the Conservative manifesto at the 2010 general election included a commitment to

“freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011, excluding the one million lowest paid workers”.

It was announced in the 2010 Budget that there would be a two-year pay freeze, except for those earning £21,000 or less, who would receive an increase of at least £250 a year. In his statement, the Chancellor went on to say that 1.7 million public servants would benefit from that and receive the £250 for two years.

In the Budget statement this year, the Chancellor had changed his tune somewhat. He said:

“I can confirm today that in the coming year all workers in the armed forces, the prison service and the NHS, and teachers and civil servants, earning £21,000 a year or less will receive a pay uplift of £250.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 508, c. 963.]

That is considerably less than the commitment given in the 2010 Budget, and it is different from—and, in a sense, considerably less than—the commitment given in the Conservative manifesto. Some work has been done that shows that if the measures include only public sector workers who are under ministerial control and subject to pay review bodies—that is in essence what the Chancellor is saying—that commitment is very considerably less. As I understand it, it equates to less than half the original number affected.

In supporting amendment 30, I want to ask the Minister directly whether he accepts that the Conservative manifesto misled the people of this country. Does he accept that, in his Budget statement in 2010, the Chancellor misled the House and the people of this country? Does he also accept that the present number of people who will benefit from the £250 uplift is considerably lower than the number originally envisaged? In those circumstances, and given the difficulties that we face in a debate of this nature on taxation, will he accept the thrust of the amendment? Will the Government recommit to doing something to address low pay for those earning less than £21,000 a year? Will the Minister also ensure that everyone earning under that amount will receive the £250, given that only some are doing so at present?

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Andrew Love and John McDonnell

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Let me put it this way, as mildly as I possibly can: we hardly have a description of evidence-based policy making before us. Let us go back to the example of the additional 1p cut given by my right hon. Friend. When the Treasury Committee considered the matter, it invited evidence and Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, was questioned about the impact it would have. He said that we did not know about that with any precision. We do not know with any precision what the impact of the overall cut in corporation tax will be and we certainly do not know with any precision, globally or sectorally, what the impact of the capital allowances cuts will be. We are stepping into the dark and going down the wrong path and that is why we should have the review.

I fear that a number of companies might have planned their development in advance based on the capital allowances that they thought were secure and would be forthcoming because of the statements of the previous Government as well of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past 12 months. They will now not proceed with that investment and as a result, the companies might not be put at risk but they will certainly not expand in the way that they planned and that will have consequences for jobs. In certain areas—my right hon. Friend has mentioned at great length the higher unemployment rates in certain regions—the effects on individual communities will be fairly catastrophic if this job growth does not go ahead.

I oppose the reduction in corporation tax, as I think it is misguided. I would prefer it if, instead of cutting taxes to companies and forgoing that income, we could use the income from the top companies and corporations to invest in public infrastructure projects that will get people back to work and stimulate the economy overall. The last thing I would suggest the Government should do, even if they are cutting corporation tax, is pay for that cut with cuts in capital allowances. In my view, that flies in the face of everything that the Government have said about rebalancing the economy, stimulating the manufacturing base and shaping behaviour so that there is a longer-term view of investment in the capital and manufacturing infrastructure of this country based on security and the knowledge of the income that a company will have to invest in the future.

Even if the Government cannot withdraw these provisions on the cuts in capital allowances and reconsider those on the corporation tax, I urge them at least to allow us to reconsider the matter within 18 months, as the amendment says, to see the implications overall. I honestly do not understand the fear within Government of having an open examination of this matter within that time scale. If I were a Minister, I would welcome it. If I were an advocate for this policy, I would welcome the opportunity to come back in 18 months or so and, if necessary, to gloat at its success. I certainly would not want to feel that I was on the run and hiding from the consequences of the decisions that I had proposed in a Finance Bill of this nature.

[Mr Love]

I echo the final comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the amendment. It mentions capital allowances—that is what we are discussing—and the impact they will have on the UK economy is of particular concern at the moment.

We must comment on the backdrop to this debate, as the economy has stalled over the past six months. We had a very bad final quarter of 2010 and although things improved in the first quarter of this year, the reality is that everyone was expecting much larger growth in the first quarter to compensate to some extent for the lack of growth in the final quarter of last year. If one reads what the commentators and forecasters have said, one sees that there is genuine concern, which is reflected in the figures provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The predicted growth rate has gone from 2.6% to 1.7%, but that figure might already be out of date, so there could be further reductions in the rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Love]

I agree, as other Members do, that that is not an unreasonable request. If the Government choose not to support the amendment, are they concerned about the impact of capital allowances and the prospects for the UK economy? One wonders whether they do not want the debate that would ensue in 2012 when, if we are to believe Government figures and the OBR, the economy should turn a corner. That would be an appropriate time at which to carry out that investigation.

There are 5 million small businesses in this country, and it is a symbol of the unity that we occasionally achieve in the Chamber that Members from all parts of the House recognise the role that they play now and, importantly, in future. If we add to the impact of capital allowances on small businesses the failure of the banking system in this country to provide the credit necessary to expand the sector, I wonder whether we can achieve all that the Government hope to achieve through the shift from public sector to private sector activity. I merely raise that as an additional issue, but I hope that the Government will address the credit needs of the small business sector a little more robustly. That is what underpins the amendment.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise, Ms Primarolo, for leaving the Chamber earlier. Should there not be some consultation of small businesses in particular so that they could describe the nature of the investments that they would forgo if they failed to secure the capital allowances that they normally secured under previous regimes? That would allow the Government to assess the overall impact of the loss of those investments to sectors of industry and on employment overall.

[Mr Love]

My hon. Friend makes my point. That is exactly why, once the changes have been introduced, we need to review and assess their impact, particularly on small businesses and more generally on the economy. We would like to be reassured that the headline rate cap with the changes to the allowances will make a material and positive difference to the economy.

I commend the amendment to the Committee and in particular to the Minister. I hope he will consider carefully what is asked for and agree that it is a constructive amendment that he can support. I hope that together we can make a real difference to the prospects for the UK economy.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Andrew Love and John McDonnell

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly my point. It might be that the levy is being set in relation to other banking reforms, particularly those on bonuses and remuneration, but not only have we seen the complete disregard of the Chancellor’s and Prime Minister’s exhortations, with bonuses continuing at a very high level, but we have seen, as another Member said, a diversion into other forms of remuneration and salary increases. That is almost an abuse of the system as set out in the Government’s proposals.

If the debate is about the adequacy of the levy, and in view of the fact that in spite of the Government having set down a marker in the proposals, bonuses have continued and remuneration has increased, can the Government not support the amendment? If the review reported at least by December—I would prefer the autumn—we could consider increasing the levy to ensure adherence to the wider banking reform proposals the Government want implemented. It is clear from the evidence produced today that the banks need a continuing threat—a sword of Damocles—hanging over their heads, if we are to get any change in the bonuses and remuneration that are so offensive to all our constituents suffering in the recession.

It might be that the levy was set so that the Merlin agreement could become fully operable and lending might start in earnest again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East noted, however, so far all the indications are that the revival of lending has not taken place. The Government’s proposals therefore warrant a review at the earliest stage, because even now, while they are still being implemented, they are not working. The evidence for that is all around us. It is clear now—this is why the review is so important—that the levy has become almost irrelevant to the real issues of capitalisation and regulation.

[Mr Love]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the review’s importance. On the one side, bankers are telling us that they are lending money and that money is available to lend; on the other side, we have small business organisations united in saying not only that money is not available, but that the terms on which it would be made available are so onerous as to make it impossible for them to take out a loan. The review could resolve who is right and who is wrong.

[John McDonnell]

The review would certainly test the adequacy of the levy as an instrument for influencing banks’ behaviour, which I believe is its purpose. However, the problem is not just the lack of lending; it is the continuing profiteering in the mainstream banking system—let alone the shadow banking system that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has been so assiduous in exposing. In the main Budget debate, I highlighted some of the interest charges being made. A report by Moneyfacts last August showed that the profit margins enjoyed by the banks on fixed-rate deals are the highest since 1988, and that the average interest rate on personal loans was 12.6%, which at 12.1% over the base rate is an all-time high. So far, the threat of the levy has done absolutely nothing to change banks’ behaviour in any aspect, whether remuneration, bonuses or lending. We are in danger of allowing the banks not merely to return to business as normal, but to get even worse. Even those in public ownership are out of public control. I find that extraordinary.

The review must take place in the context of other attempts, such as the Basel discussions, to restrain or control banks’ behaviour. Basel II seems to let the banks off the hook on a range of issues, from remuneration to capital ratios. The levy is meant to come in the context of the reforms the Government are engaging in nationally and internationally, but the Financial Times reported today that discussions about global standards on bank lending risks are not moving towards an agreement, so now we are not even moving forward in capital ratio discussions.

We need to consider the levy in the context of the banks’ role overall and the anger in our wider communities. Many believe—rightly—that the banks played the key role in creating the recession, and now, if we are not careful, by not lending or engaging in economic growth, they will play a role if not in tipping the economy into a double-dip recession, at least in leaving the economy to scrape along the bottom of economic activity. I have referred before to the words of Graham Turner, from the Left Economics Advisory Panel. He works in the City and is an expert on what happened in Japan. We face the prospect of a long, low-level, depressed, deflationary spiral if we do not use the levy to stimulate the banks into playing a responsible role within our economy.

We will come out of recession only through an astute mix of fiscal and monetary policy. In the 1930s—this is the whole point about Keynes—it was about not just deficit funding and quantitative easing, but more importantly banking reform. Banking reform is one element of the strategy that any Government must adopt to take us out of recession, and the banking levy is one of the few tools and weapons at our disposal that can force through banking reform. So far, the threat of the banking levy has failed to engage even those banks that are in public ownership in a proper discussion about banking reform and the role that they will have to play in tackling the recession and encouraging economic activity.

Finance Bill

Debate between Andrew Love and John McDonnell

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The difference is clear with regard to legality and illegality. The technical implementation of tax legislation can be complex, so people can misunderstand which side of the fence they fall. During earlier debates in the House, the Denis Healey quote was cited that the difference is a prison wall. The implementation of measures to tackle tax evasion in particular is critical to the sound management of public finances and, obviously, to probity in the management of tax resources.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that avoidance and evasion are the same to the extent that, in the context of both, it will take a motivated and full work force at HMRC to deliver the benefits that the Government supposedly seek?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Complication is certainly an issue. That is partly why I want the Chancellor to report to the House on the measures that will be used to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. We need a simplification of the process, but we also need to know how many staff the Government will employ for collection purposes.

[Mr Love]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Does he agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the terms of the Budget are likely to make the tax system more complicated, rather than introducing the simplicity that the Government claim is one of the objectives of their Budget?

[John McDonnell]

Let me say as objectively as I can that I have not yet seen a Budget that simplified the taxation system, and I have been here for 13 years. I live in hope, which is why my amendment requests a further report that might indicate the path that the Government intend to take. I am merely a humble seeker for truth in this matter, as always.

I investigated various sources in my search for estimates of the tax gap. The latest HMRC estimate that I could find was £40 billion, but there is an element of uncertainty reflected in a reported memorandum circulated to staff in HMRC and the wider Treasury, asking people to come up with ideas for identifying and calculating the gap.

The HMRC estimate has been challenged by others. I chair a group called the Left Economics Advisory Panel, which brings together a number of Left economists including some who have been working with the Tax Justice Campaign. Over the years many Members will have worked with Richard Murphy and John Christensen, who are held in respect across parties because of the work they have undertaken in this sphere, and the advice that they have given to the Treasury and other organisations for a number of years. According to their estimate over the past year, the tax gap could be anything between £70 billion and £120 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is an interesting point. Tax compliance should be a duty in law, so there should be a requirement on us all to pay our appropriate level of tax. Tax planning is perfectly consistent within the law and is appropriate for individuals and organisations in order to ensure that they pay the appropriate tax. However, such devices should not be used to avoid paying the rightful level of tax and certainly should not be used for the purposes of tax evasion, which is the illegal avoidance of tax.

As I was saying, my concern is that, just when we need staff to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, we are faced with the previous Government’s plan for a further 12,000 job cuts within HMRC. I urge the new Government to review the matter and to look again at the staffing level that will be required if we are seriously to address tax evasion and avoidance. That is another reason why my amendment calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before us a report that sets out the measures he proposes to take

“to ensure the payment of tax which is due”.

In devising those measures, appropriate discussions will need to take place about the level of staffing and the qualifications and abilities required of such staff. Such factors will militate against the scale of job cuts that have taken place.

On another issue, but one that has certainly been close to the hearts of several Members over the past two years, such measures will need to take into account not just staffing levels but staff location. The closure in recent times of local tax offices has reduced HMRC’s ability to respond to tax evasion and tax avoidance on the basis of local knowledge, and to assist local companies and individuals in proper tax planning so that they can comply with the law. I request that any report that the Chancellor introduces deal with the implications of the closure of local tax offices and, therefore, the appropriate location of the staff themselves.

I have tabled two amendments, the first of which, amendment 11, deals with corporation tax.

[Mr Love]

Does my hon. Friend agree that any such report dealing with HMRC must also deal with the difficulties that arose on the amalgamation of Revenue and Customs because of the very different cultures within those organisations? We really must address those difficulties, which still reverberate around the organisation, even at this late stage.

[John McDonnell]

I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. I accept that there have been issues relating to a new department settling down over time, but I want to pay tribute to the staff involved for the excellent job they have done in the set-up of the new organisation, for the flexible way they have worked and for the co-operation that has worked across past agencies as they have come together. I accept that that might be an issue and it could be referred to.

I will not repeat the same speech when we deal with amendment 12.