Pension Funds: Financial and Ethical Investments

Debate between Bambos Charalambous and Ed Davey

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Davey]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. In government, we placed tough regulations on that sector, which were based strongly on environmental considerations. It has not been able to grow to meet them. It has nowhere to go.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I agree entirely that Parliament should take the lead in not investing in fossil fuels. Yesterday, BP’s investors decided that it should adopt a totally different strategy on carbon fuels so it fits in with the Paris agreement on climate change. Does he agree that other companies should take that way forward?

[Sir Edward Davey]

I saw what happened at the BP annual general meeting yesterday, and I welcome it, although a second motion, which was a bit stricter, did not carry. I would have liked that motion to carry.

That brings me to my argument. Not only is there a moral imperative for us to divest, given the threat climate change poses to our planet; there is also a financial risk for pension funds and their beneficiaries. We need to explore that. We need to make it clear to pension fund managers and trustees that pulling out of fossil fuels is the right thing to do in financial terms. The real issue is often called the carbon bubble. We are investing in more fossil fuels than we could possibly need if we were going to stay climate change compliant. At some stage, that bubble of investment in carbon that we do not need will burst, leaving pension funds and the wider economy in a serious mess. Those assets would be worthless; they would be stranded assets, which would cause huge disruption in our financial sector.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Bambos Charalambous and Ed Davey

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Davey]

Having taken that wonderful intervention, I bring it to the House’s attention that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has signed my new clause. It is bringing the House together at a time when elsewhere it is divided.

I end on what this loan charge and its retrospective nature have meant for our constituents. It has caused misery. It has affected people’s lives, their health, their families. It has caused gross misery. Some people believe they will have to go bankrupt if they are forced to pay, or that they might lose their homes, and that is why the House is united against this retrospective action. I really hope that the Minister will get to his feet, accept the new clause, go ahead with the review and bring it back before the end of the tax year, so that the House can see it and vote on it.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 2. I was staggered to learn that entrepreneurs’ relief costs the Treasury an estimated £2.7 billion, and this to allow people selling companies worth up to £10 million to keep half the money they would otherwise pay in capital gains tax.

I was even more surprised to learn that this tax relief was concentrated among a few very wealthy individuals, with 6,000 people making gains of over £1 million and averaging £450,000 in tax relief each. This relief is only benefiting the very wealthy and should be reviewed as to its effectiveness. If it is scrapped, the £2.7 billion could be used to fund schools buckling under the pressure of funding cuts and provide huge investment in special educational needs and children and adolescent mental health needs. It could also go some way to funding children’s services and social care in local authorities and policing.

This is not the only area where the Government are giving away money that could otherwise be put to better use. Under amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the Government are being asked to review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979. The Alcohol Health Alliance has stated that the Government’s own figures show that alcohol duty cuts from 2013-14 have cost the Treasury £4 billion, which is the equivalent yearly cost of employing over 100,000 teachers. The figure is expected to rise to £9.1 billion by 2024. Considering the pressures on budgets as a result of austerity, that is not an insignificant amount.

The freeze on duty on beer, spirits and cider for 12 months from February 2019 is in effect a cut, as it is not keeping in line with inflation. Indeed, it has not done so for six of the last seven years. Cheap alcohol has a tremendous effect in causing damage to people’s health, the economy and wider society. Alcohol is the leading risk factor in respect of the deaths of people aged 15 to 49. In England alone, there are more than 1 million hospital admissions and 24,000 deaths related to alcohol every year. That is a clearly an impact that the Government need to consider when they set duties on beer, spirits and cider. Cuts in alcohol duty have a double effect. They reduce revenue for the Treasury, which in turn reduces the amount of funding for the NHS, while simultaneously increasing demand and costs in the NHS by encouraging the consumption of cheap alcohol. I therefore ask the Government to review the impact of the alcohol duty freeze on public health.