amendment of the law

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)will forgive me, I hope, if I do not follow him directly in what he has just said. I want to say something about infrastructure in this country, and I want to talk about some of the slightly longer-term issues in relation to the capacity in our economy as it now is, as well as levels of public expenditure, but I start with annuities. In drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I declare a further interest. As I was 60 at the end of last year, my professional interest in pensions has become rather more personal.

Five years ago when I was Chancellor I looked at the whole question of annuities, which at that time was receiving quite a lot of publicity. There were two reasons that I did not make any changes. One was that I was concerned about any major change that would undermine the insurance principle that underpinned the idea of annuities when they were introduced some 70 or 80 years ago. Also, at that time I was concerned about some of the safeguards that we would need. Given the general economic climate at the time and because I was more focused on what was happening to our banks rather than our insurance companies, I did not pursue the matter.

However, I quite accept now that, because of the very poor annuity rates in the past few years and because the industry has not helped itself in the range of products that it offers people, it is time to look at the matter again. There are three areas about which I want to express my concern. These are issues that the whole House needs to address, and the Government need to address them during the consultation period that follows. First, I am concerned about the effect of the proposals on the annuity market. It is interesting that one does not have to get too many pages into the White Paper to see that at paragraph 2.27 the Government say that annuities are

“the only realistic option for many.”

I read last week that the IFS is concerned about the effect that taking out the higher end contributions will have on annuity rates. The Government need to have regard to that. It is not insuperable, but we need to look at it.

Secondly, the Australians have shown that it is possible to have a wide range of products that we would not necessarily recognise as annuities, but safeguards are needed, particularly in relation to the advice being offered. The Government said last week that they had made £20 million available. When I read the detail, I was surprised to find that that is a one-off payment. There is nothing after that. We in this House should all know that unfortunately the financial services industry has shown that if there is scope for mis-selling, mis-selling will happen. This is critically important.

Although the Pensions Minister may be indifferent as to whether or not somebody buys a Lamborghini, if they are buying it, they must at least understand that there might be consequences for how much money they have for the rest of their lives. It is not in the public interest that people go into something that might have to last them for the next 20 or 30 years without having received proper advice. That needs to be looked at. The offer of guidance is not enough.

Thirdly, the Government will have to consider the scope for tax avoidance. The reason that pensions are tax-privileged is that there is a societal interest in making sure that we save for our retirement. It was never designed to enable people to shelter their money from tax. Those are all aspects that need to be looked at.

I want to say a word about infrastructure. On Monday last week in the Financial Times there was the now traditional announcement of all the infrastructure projects that were on their way and on show, and an invitation to the pensions industry and others to invest. That is all very well. There were some old familiars which I recognise from my time in government, which are still not built and are still looking for money. Owing to the Budget, the pensions industry has just been relieved of quite a large sum of money. I would be interested in the Government’s assessment of where we will get the additional funds that we all know are needed from both the public and the private sector if we are to improve our housing stock, our transport stock and our ageing power fleet, which we are still struggling to replace. Successive Governments have had difficulties with that and this Government need to attend to the matter. That infrastructure will have some bearing on the capacity in our economy if we are to be able to provide for an ageing population and everything we have taken for granted over the past 30 or 40 years.

Reading the OBR report on the Government’s measures announced last week in relation to the economy, we see, rather surprisingly, that none of the measures announced by the Chancellor will, in the view of the IFS, make any difference whatever to the country’s GDP. The annual investment allowance which he doubled will, it says, have a negligible effect. That did not surprise me, because I doubled it when I was the Chancellor and it had no effect then. At least the advice from the IFS and the Treasury is entirely consistent. What is worrying is that we must increase the capacity of our economy. If we do not, we are locking ourselves on to a path where austerity will be unavoidable, because we will not have the wealth to pay down our debt, reduce the borrowing and generate the capacity needed in an economy.

This is an issue for Members on both sides of the House. We must decide how we are going to get more capacity into the economy. I hope the measures announced last week in the Budget work, but whether firms come to this country will be determined far more by big issues such as our infrastructure than by simply fiddling round the edges with tax reforms.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. Does he agree that unlocking potential capacity and creating more employment in turn creates more revenue?

[Mr Darling]

Absolutely, and the argument that has been with us throughout this Parliament has been about how to ensure that we generate growth to pay down the debt. Part of the problem that the Government have at the moment is that the plan that they started out with did not achieve significant results—it is not the same plan as they are operating now, by the way, because it is running some four years late and is significantly different from the one set out in 2010—because we simply did not have the economic growth that people expected.

One of the most worrying points in the OBR’s report is that it expects our economy to be at full capacity in just four years’ time. Normally, when growth recovers after a recession, as it did in the ’80s and ’90s, it peaks at 3% or perhaps 4%, because spare capacity is being used up. The OBR says that there simply is not spare capacity in the economy at the moment. That should worry us, because if our economy is operating at capacity in four years’ time and inflationary pressures start kicking in, how on earth will we meet the future bills of a mature economy with an ageing society?

I understand that some Government Members are more ideological than others about public expenditure, and understandably, many of them expressed concern about the flooding in the west country earlier this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.