Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

rose—

CPI/RPI Pensions Uprating

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly forgotten the imposition of a tax on private pension schemes in that first Labour Budget of 1997, which I think many people realised at the time would be a recurrent year-on-year tax that would lead to the erosion of private pension funding over time. Private companies then acted very rationally. Many of them ceased to offer defined benefit pension schemes.

Let me give some figures which I take to be rough estimates. There are approximately 29 million people in Britain’s work force today, 23 million of whom are employed in the private sector. I was shocked to learn that only 3.2 million of those 23 million were currently active members of a pension scheme in which the employer makes any contribution. That contrasts with the position in the public sector, in which about 5.5 million of the 6 million employees are members of pension schemes. That is the proportion that we should aspire to in terms of pension provision throughout the work force. I know that our pensions Minister aspires very much towards movement in that direction.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, many years ago, public sector salaries were lower and therefore pension provision was always higher, but over the last decade or more salary levels have equalised, and in many cases the lowest-paid public sector worker now earns more than the lowest-paid private sector worker and has a pension that the private sector worker can only dream of?

[Harriett Baldwin]

Personally, I aspire to a future in which all Britain’s pensioners can rely on a secure retirement income, which will come from three main elements.

I welcome measures taken by the pensions Minister and the Chancellor to provide a triple-lock guarantee: the linking of the basic state pension, and increases in that pension, to CPI, average earnings or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. That, I think, is an extremely robust foundation. As the Minister knows, I look forward to the inclusion in the Queen’s Speech of further legislation simplifying the state pension system, eliminating the means-testing deterrent to saving and creating a stable, predictable and inflation-linked state pension that will be the foundation for a basic level of income in retirement.

Of course, we need to aspire to be a country where everyone has an additional employment-related pension. About 12 million people are already pensioners, and we welcome the fact that their inflation-linked increase will rise by over 5% this year: I believe that that is the largest cash increase in the history of the state pension. This Government’s budgeting decisions are therefore focusing on the needs of current pensioners, and for future pensioners the largest employers will from October start to auto-enrol their employees into employment-linked schemes. That measure enjoys cross-party support, and it will mark the beginning of a savings programme that is estimated to bring in a further 5 million to 8 million pension savers and add a substantial sum to the savings of this country. Otherwise, we will be woefully under-pensioned in future. We are currently a very under-pensioned country. It is tragic that our country has eroded its position in respect of pensions so much. In 1997, we were one of the leading pension countries in the world, but we now have a lot of catching up to do. I welcome all the steps the pensions Minister is putting in place to improve the situation.

Having mentioned the triple lock and auto-enrolment, I shall now make a few points about the difference between CPI and RPI. We all know that inflation is the big enemy of the pensioner, as nothing erodes retirement income more. Lower inflation results in less erosion of retirement income, of course, but all pensioners must understand that they need to protect their fixed retirement income from inflation.

CPI is the inflation measure that we have instructed the Bank of England to target and to average out over time. I therefore think the Bank of England should, perhaps, consider moving its own pension scheme on to a CPI link. That scheme is currently linked to RPI, but it would increase everybody’s confidence in the Bank’s long-term ability to meet its CPI target if it were to adopt that measure for its pensions. That is a cheeky aside, however.

Neither the RPI nor the CPI measure will ever accurately reflect the inflation that pensioners experience. We have talked about the fact that mortgage interest is not included in the RPI basket. Interest rates fell dramatically in 2008 and that led to the RPI being negative in 2009—it was minus 1.4%. Do we want to follow an index that results in people having reduced income in some years? In that instance, we decided that we did not want that so we maintained a zero rate, but people still complained to me that their pension had not increased that year.

Connecting Europe Facility

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

As I understand it, the EU’s ambition is to develop a trans-European network in transport, telecommunications and energy as part of the treaty on the functioning of the EU. It therefore wants the budget for 2014 to 2020 to include sufficient funds to put an extra €50 billion into a connecting Europe facility. However, it also wants to regulate EU-wide programmes. Specifically, on transport, it is proposing that member states commit to a core network by 2030, and to a comprehensive transport network by 2050. The EU estimates that it would cost Britain between £64 billion and £137 billion to meet those targets over that period. Does the Minister believe that if such a regulation were to come into force under qualified majority voting, it could force Britain to spend that amount of its own resources in a way that would be directed by the EU? That would be an astonishing outcome.

On energy, the Commission believes that member states need to spend €200 billion on electricity and gas networks alone, and that €1 trillion is needed for EU energy infrastructure in total. Will the Minister tell me what proportion of that the UK would be required to spend, and whether that requirement would be enforceable at EU level under QMV?

On telecoms, the EU target for rolling out broadband is different from that of the UK. The Commission believes that there are telecoms bottlenecks that hinder the single market. In the light of our own recent commitment to rolling out superfast broadband, I would be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the British Government need the EU’s advice or the Commission’s targets on how, and to what level, we roll out superfast broadband here. Are those legitimate areas for the EU to be involved in, or are they domestic matters? Does the Minister see a pan-European angle to these questions or not?

What is the Minister’s view of top-down EU expenditure, made entirely at the taxpayer’s expense, as opposed to private sector, or combined public and private sector, investment? Is he aware of any efforts by the Commission to test private sector interest in some of its pet schemes? What proportion of the roughly €7 billion that Britain’s taxpayers would contribute to the connection fund would be spent here, where there is a huge backlog of infrastructure needs, rather than elsewhere in Europe?

I want to make three broad comments on the proposals, in support of the motion. First, I find it astonishing that the European Commission seems to be the only bit of Europe in which the recession, the financial crisis and the issues of sovereign insolvency have passed unnoticed. It is as though it were inhabiting a parallel universe.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of moving from Brussels to Strasbourg on a regular basis is an ideal budget item to be struck through before forcing member states to spend money on these proposals?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent idea. That would be high on my list of bits of wasteful bureaucracy to get rid of.

What sort of parallel universe is the European Commission inhabiting, if it thinks it reasonable to be expanding the European budget for 2014 to 2020 in the current climate? Why is the EU seeking to take power and control over these particular policy areas, at a time when they are already high on our own Government’s agenda? Requiring Britain to contribute to EU funds is not acceptable, and giving the Commission the authority to require Britain to make expenditure on its own domestic projects is equally unacceptable.

My second point is that the EU has proved itself time and again to be an inefficient allocator of scarce resources. In regard to structural funds, Open Europe estimates that Britain has contributed €33 billion between 2007 and 2013, and that we have received roughly €9 billion. If we took back control over that €33 billion, we might well wish to continue to contribute to the poorer EU member states—that is, those with a national income of 90% of the average or less. However, if we had contributed the same amount to those poorer member states, we could also have spent the same €9 billion that we received from the structural fund, creating a £4 billion saving. If Britain had allocated that same amount, €9 billion, to its own regions, plus the same amount to the poorer EU states, there would have been a £4 billion saving that could have gone towards reducing our deficit or investing further in the poorer regions of the UK. The difference identified by Open Europe’s estimate is a result of the leakage due to the recycling of cash between the richer countries.

It is interesting to note that the Department for International Development spends about 4% of its budget on administration, with a target of 2%. By contrast, the EU Commission spends 5.4% of its contributions to overseas aid on administration. No doubt it is very conscious of that figure, as it has been singled out for comment.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Andrea Leadsom

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I fully accept that the issue has been out there and unsolved for at least 100 years. However, I think that it was a deliberate strategy by the previous Government, as evidenced by Lord Irvine’s statement. The do-nothing approach risks causing the same English alienation that Scottish devolution was designed to address for Scotland.

A second approach to address the issue is through under-representation at Westminster for the parts of the UK that have their own Parliament, which is often known as the Stormont solution. During most of the 20th century there was a Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont, and Northern Ireland sent only 11 Members of Parliament to Westminster when its population would have justified 17. That is another possible approach, but I do not think it is the right one. Also, it is completely at odds with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which brings a welcome equalisation of constituency sizes.

A third option that people have mentioned is an English Parliament. There is a campaign group for this solution, but that approach leads to a plethora of questions. Would it require separate elections or a separate building? Would we have a First Minister for England? What if the First Minister for England was different from the Prime Minister? That solution would also be extremely expensive, and I do not think that the mood in the country is in favour of an additional layer of politicians. That approach could also lead to the formal break-up of the United Kingdom, so I have completely rejected it. A fourth approach, which, to be fair to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was the one initially taken by the previous Government, is devolution to regional government, giving the English regions more constitutional power. However, that was rejected decisively in the 2004 referendum in the north-east.

A fifth option, which has been on the table for some time, is something called English votes for English laws. Unfortunately, however, that would create two categories of MPs, leaving the Executive powerless to win votes on important public service issues. That was the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset in his private Member’s Bill, and was also the approach outlined in the 2001 and 2005 Conservative manifestos.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that at least that solution would appear to be fair? Many voters in this country would see it as the fair solution: if a particular piece of legislation did not affect their area, Members should not be able to vote on it.

Independent Financial Advisers

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will come to that.

The FSA has come up with proposals to address the issue. They are close to final, and the board is likely to take a decision in December. Under the current plans, the proposals will be implemented by the end of 2012. As they stand, the proposals are known as the retail distribution review. As colleagues have suggested, they raise real questions about the role of regulation and the laws of unintended, and indeed intended, consequences in terms of regulation.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is it not also true that not only will there be a reduction in the number of IFAs, but many of those who have been in the industry for a long time, who are very experienced and who understand the market and customers very well, will unfortunately inadvertently fall foul of the regulations?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee, makes an extremely important point, which I will mention in a moment.

The impact of the proposals has been brought to my attention by a range of independent financial advisers, who are also constituents. Acting independently of one another, they all came to see me in my advice surgeries. Under the RDR proposals, each IFA should pass a set of exams and then spend at least 35 hours per annum on continuous professional development. Hon. Members should note that the requirement is 35 hours and that 34 hours would not be acceptable. IFAs also need to obtain a statement of professional standing from an accredited body. Someone who, today, is a qualified and approved IFA but who does not meet those requirements by 31 December 2012, will no longer be able to practise his or her profession, despite many years’ experience.