amendment of the law

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), but judging from what he said about small businesses, he does not appear to have noticed that in previous Budgets under this Chancellor there have been changes to the tax and investment regimes that have been enormously beneficial to them. It is right that in this Budget the Chancellor should turn his attention to savings and pensions.

This was a great and profound Budget. Its consequences will live with us, to the substantial overall benefit of the United Kingdom, for decades to come. I share the huge enthusiasm for treating savers like adults and creating a vastly improved environment to encourage saving. However, changes on this scale will have unforeseen difficult consequences, as well as some that are already being identified by expert commentators.

I represent four major providers of savings products in the Reigate constituency: blue-chip market leaders in Legal and General with 2,500 jobs and Fidelity with nearly 2,000 jobs; and two newer market entrants, Partnership and Just Retirement. The latter two have provided astonishing case studies of what can be achieved by well-led and innovative companies. They have become market leaders in specialist annuity products and have led the growth of the equity release market, which is such an important product in the suite of products available to give people a sustainable and comfortable retirement. Between them they have added many hundreds of jobs in my constituency in the last few years alone. I am astonished by the market reaction to the Budget, which saw their share prices halve under the assumption that the annuity business was now effectively over.

The Chancellor’s proposals are just ushering in an era where innovation in savings products and market fleet-footedness will play straight to the competitive advantages of the people employed by those two companies. The behemoths of Legal and General and Fidelity are also rightly highly bullish about the much-improved climate for savings that the Chancellor now proposes. The short-term analysis of some market-makers has left me bemused. They plainly do not know enough about the companies or their excellent people and products and their ability to innovate in this great new market.

The challenge is to ensure the spirit of the reforms develops into a well-governed and safe experience to deliver good customer outcomes. Rightly therefore, much of the attention has been on guidance. The financial services industry has held a protracted debate on the differences between advice and guidance without delivering a solution for the 500,000 people who retire each year with defined contribution pensions or the future wave of retirees who have been auto-enrolled into them. The Financial Conduct Authority reported evidence of major failure in pension provider pre-retirement processes, with eight in 10 consumers who purchased an annuity from their incumbent pension provider able to get a better deal by shopping around. This perhaps explains why a recent Which? survey found that only 42% of consumers coming up to retirement trust their pension provider to act in their best interest. Taking provider interests out of the new guidance framework is necessary to ensure savers are properly equipped to consider their options in the external open market.

The Government have just resisted amendments to the Care Bill about guidance on the cost of care, but I now think we need to nudge people in the direction of properly informed independent advice at retirement to help them make the best plan for their circumstances. I suggest that a small percentage of any tax-exempt saving should be reserved for paying for independent financial advice at retirement. If savers have a proffered pot of funds that has been ring-fenced for advice, they will be in no doubt as to what the state thinks they should do. However, consistent with treating people as adults, if they take a positive decision to opt out of independent advice at retirement, on their own head be it if they decide to put those ring-fenced funds into their wider savings pot and make their own decisions or place themselves in the hands of an existing provider without taking an informed view of the whole market.

The complexity of choice in the use of all one’s assets, pensions, savings and property at the point of retirement to insure against future care costs, provide an annuity, make cash available and decide on protection or use of the family property cries out for independent advice. We should nudge people in that direction. Expecting the provider industry to deliver that is a triumph of hope over experience. This will continue to be a key debate and, given my constituency interest, one of which I would want to be a continuing part. Yes, that is a bid to serve on the Committee of the Pensions Bill. There are, however, now a series of concerns about the consequences of the behaviour of savers faced with these welcome new freedoms and what that will mean for the financial markets.

Much reaction to the Budget has focused on the less competitive, inert parts of the annuity market, but the majority of pension value is placed in the open, transparent, competitive external annuity market, which does deliver good value for consumers. People should continue to value security, especially at a time of life when returning to work may not be an option for providing income. Annuities will remain the only means of providing a guaranteed income for life.

Just Retirement and Partnership are both specialist retirement income providers whose arrival in the past 10 years has driven innovation, value and competition, and has positively disrupted the market. The development of equity release, led by Just Retirement, has opened a vast new opportunity for meeting Europe’s gaping black hole in provision for a comfortable retirement for a growing number of retirees as a proportion of our population, so we ought to raise the warning flags over the potential unintended consequences of this welcome policy change.

In conclusion, this Budget will live in the pantheon of the great Budgets, along with Geoffrey Howe’s lifting of exchange controls and Nigel Lawson’s cutting of the higher rate of income tax. Overall, it is a great measure and I am proud to support the Chancellor.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who stressed the importance of getting independent advice. That advice was well worth giving, but I simply observe that in the past people have had independent advice but it has not always turned out to be to their advantage. There are two kinds of independent advice: good advice and bad advice. How we distinguish between the two will be—

[Crispin Blunt]

The important change is that independent advice is now definitively independent advice—the era of relationships, commission and so on between financial advisers and providers has gone, and that is an important benefit.

[Mr Howarth]

I agree, but my concern is that the people giving the advice need to be competent; it is not necessarily a question of whom they are connected to.

I want to use the time available to me to talk about the Budget and poverty, but first I wish to refer to my experience of volunteering in our local food bank—the Big Help Project—last Saturday at the Tesco supermarket in Prescot, in my constituency. The first point to make is how generous the response of shoppers was to the appeal. It was so overwhelming that at one point the volunteers struggled to keep up with the number of bags of groceries that were being given to us, and that is a great tribute to everybody involved. Secondly, from talking to volunteers and supporters it became clear that they did not take a prescriptive view of people who, unfortunately, have to rely on the services of a food bank to feed their family. The statistics bear out why people are right to be sympathetic. The Big Help Project has had 6,000 referrals over the past 12 months, 73% of which are the result of benefit changes, benefit delays or low income. The project has a vital job to do, but we need to be mindful of the reasons why people find it necessary to go to a food bank.

I want to talk specifically about poverty, and not about welfare. We have sometimes managed to confuse those terms, but they sometimes go together and sometimes do not. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation,

“the most distinctive characteristic of poverty today is the very high number of working people who are also poor.”

Again, the food bank experience in Knowsley bears that out, as 22% of those referred are in employment but they are so poorly paid that they are forced to rely on the food bank to make ends meet. The other two main groups relying on the food bank are people who are dependent on the benefits system and who are affected either by benefit changes or by delays in payments. In some cases, these people find themselves with absolutely no income at all, and often that is as a result of sanctions, which in some cases are arbitrarily put on people who are trying to make a claim.

The trouble with the Government’s approach to welfare reform is not just that it is morally flawed, but that it is based on the subjective view that welfare dependency is, in some way, a choice that people can make. If it were as simple as that, it would be a relatively straightforward phenomenon to resolve—but it is not as simple as that. The reality is that people who want to re-enter the labour market are often confronted with a complex web of barriers that can, in some cases, be impossible to negotiate without help that is tailor-made to their particular circumstances.

Research from the Department for Work and Pensions itself has concluded that what matters for poverty reduction is not the aggregate employment rate, but the share of working age adults and children in workless households. In other words, an increase in the number of people in the labour market will not necessarily reduce poverty if it consists of people entering the labour market from households which are not already in poverty. So, even if employment rates are rising—I acknowledge that they are—below the surface there is a highly polarised employment structure, with a high number of double earners and a high level of zero-earner households. The Secretary of State referred to that in his opening speech.

What the Government’s approach fails to take into account are the barriers that those in zero-earner households have to surmount to become earners—certainly at a level that does not lead to their still living in poverty. Time forbids me from going into too much detail, but let me offer two examples of the barriers that people experience. The first is the recruitment practices in many companies. A UK Commission for Employment and Skills report in 2010 concluded that employers increasingly use informal channels of recruitment rather than the jobcentre, which further disadvantages those who are unemployed and, as a result, they do not have the informal contacts needed to be in the know. That approach is probably even more commonplace now in my constituency than it was at that time.

The second barrier is the increasing use of zero-hours contracts by employers. There are varying estimates as to the level of their use, with between 500,000 and 1 million people thought to be affected. I do not intend to get into a discussion about which figure is correct, but that barrier, taken together with the unreliability of agency contract work, makes it difficult for families to abandon the benefit system altogether. That is because the employment available is so insecure and unreliable as to be too risky to contemplate—certainly for families. Indeed, it presents the very real possibility that by finding a job someone will be plunging their family into even greater poverty than they were experiencing already.

Although there are obvious improvements in the economy and in the levels of employment, poverty is stubbornly persistent in this country, to a wholly unacceptable degree. I am afraid that I am bound to conclude that because the Government do not understand the causes of poverty, they have not addressed it at all in this Budget.