Scotch Whisky Industry

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) for initiating this important debate today.

Whisky is Scotland’s gift to the world, a gift that brings enormous benefit to the Exchequer. It has a substantial impact on our trade statistics and generates substantial employment in Scotland. The success of the whisky industry is rooted in rural Scotland, where the addition of well-paid employment puts substantial income into many local economies.

There has been a renaissance in Scotch whisky with so many iconic brands being marketed and sold throughout the world. Its brand identity is unparalleled and has been hard won, although it needs to be protected and invested in. There is a competitive threat from other products, but none have the right to call their product Scotch whisky. The rich diversity of successful Scotch whisky global brands has helped to create the circumstances for an explosion of investment in new distilleries, often small community-based operations that add to the rich tapestry of unique product offerings and the breadth of those offerings to the discerning palate. Each whisky is unique and is shaped by the environment and character of each distillery with the barley, the local source of water and the peculiarities of the still among other things affecting the character of each whisky.

We have several distilleries in my constituency, including some in the planning and development phase. In Skye, we have the iconic Talisker whisky, which was the favourite of writer Robert Louis Stevenson. In his poem, “The Scotsman’s Return from Abroad”, he said:

“The king o’ drinks, as I conceive it, Talisker, Islay, or Glenlivet.”

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Blackford]

Because of lack of time I want to press on, but before my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute gets excited about Islay being mentioned in the same sentence as Talisker, I should point out to him that the king of whisky, Talisker, is the first and foremost whisky to be mentioned in the poem.

Moreover, in the film “Charlie Wilson’s War”, CIA agent Gust Avrakotos presents Congressman Wilson with a bottle of Talisker. The agent explains to Charlie that Scotch is mentioned in a Robert Louis Stevenson poem, but the bottle is bugged and allows him to listen to the congressman’s conversations. One would hope that in this House Talisker may be enjoyed by all and certainly never used for more subversive activity, although with this Government you never know.

One website on whisky stated the following of Talisker:

“This alluring, sweet, full-bodied single malt is so easy to enjoy, and like Skye itself, so hard to leave.”

What must be kept in mind is that Talisker distillery and so many of our distilleries are located not just in the most beautiful parts of our country but in areas of varying degrees of fragility of economic activity. Talisker is located on the western side of Sky where the potential for full-time, year-round employment is limited. The distillery employs 45 staff members, a significant number for an island with a population of just over 10,000. It is of note that only nine of those jobs are in production, with the vast bulk of employment being around the visitor centre. Last year, it welcomed a grand total of 67,000 visitors. The distillery is the second highest visitor attraction in footfall on the island of Skye.

Clearly many people come to Skye to visit Talisker, among other places, helping to grow and develop our tourist offering and tourist spend, not just at Talisker but throughout the island. The motion today refers to the economic value of whisky to our country. That economic benefit is based on the direct value of the whisky industry to many rural communities in my constituency and elsewhere. Talisker is a well-established, successful brand, but the story does not end there.

Torabhaig distillery is under construction on the Sleat peninsula on Skye. This distillery is expected to employ a staff of eight when it enters production. There are also plans for a new distillery on the island of Raasay. There is a birth of a new spirit in the Hebrides, a spirit that will excite the whisky world with these new ventures adding to the appeal of Skye and Raasay as the premium whisky region of the entire industry.

I have many distilleries in my constituency. The Glen Ord distillery in Muir of Ord is a contrast with Talisker. It employs just shy of 60 workers and as well as production of the Singleton of Glen Ord brand and a successful visitor centre, there is also a maltings at Glen Ord as well as an engineering base for the parent company, Diageo.

I am glad to say that not far from Glen Ord, just outside Dingwall, is another new distillery, GlenWyvis, based on a long-held tradition of distilling in this area, under the name of the previous Ferintosh distillery. Our national bard, Rabbie Burns, famously lamented the previous loss of this distillery when he said in 1759:

“Thee, Ferintosh! O sadly lost!”

Well, it is lost no more.

Because of lack of time, I will wrap up. We celebrate the success of the whisky industry, but let me quote Douglas Fraser of the BBC, who stated in 2013:

“Scotch whisky is a national brand worth toasting. It is a drink that can only be distilled and matured in one country—Scotland—but which sells in to 200 markets around the world. How did Scotch go from cottage industry to global phenomenon and how does it benefit its country of origin?”

That question requires more time for debate than we have today, but let me reflect briefly on employment.

As has been mentioned, 40,000 jobs are connected with the industry, 7,000 of which are in rural Scotland. My challenge to the industry is that, as well as the very welcome investment in distilleries, more can be done to make sure a greater part of the supply chain is secured in the area of production. Let us increase the dividend available for those in whisky-producing areas and let us toast the success of the industry, but let us have the ambition to grow this fantastic industry on a sustainable basis. To encourage this to happen, the Chancellor must play his part next week by reducing duty and introducing greater equity for the Scotch whisky industry.

Equitable Life

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to sum up the debate. I warmly thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and those who signed the motion. As has been pointed out, the wide-ranging all-party parliamentary group has 195 members from all parties, which demonstrates the interest hon. Members take in this matter. It was also said in the debate that, in each of our constituencies, there are around about 2,000 Equitable Life policyholders, which shows the scale of the problem we face and why we must take the matter seriously. I am delighted that we are having this debate today.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the outrageous scandal, which is exactly the point. He went on to talk about the perceptions of market risk—markets going up and down—and the promises that were given to Equitable Life policyholders. However, in the main, we are not only talking about promises, because Equitable Life gave guarantees to its policyholders. We ought to reflect on that point, particularly in the light of what he said in the debate about who knew within the company, the regulator and the Government. Ultimately, the Government must stand behind the regulator when there is market failure of the degree that took place with Equitable Life. That is their responsibility.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) spoke at the tail-end of the debate. I say to him that everybody understands that all parties want a balanced budget, but we also have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the consumer interest. That is what we are talking about today. I ask the Minister to reflect on what was said by the hon. Member for Harrow East and others on looking for those who have pre-1992 annuities and considering what can be done for them.

Two broad themes have been mentioned time and again in the debate: fairness, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones); and regulatory failure, which goes back to the Government’s ultimate responsibility, and which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach).

The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made the point about the 2,000 members and the fact that all hon. Members are still getting letters from constituents. Many of my SNP colleagues have had them in the past few weeks.

One of the most important points was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) and others. We must have confidence in the financial markets. If we are not going to stand behind the policyholders in this case, that undermines the savings culture that we want. We want people to invest in pensions and know that there is consumer confidence problem. We must tackle that.

I want to put this debate in the context of the good debate we had just a couple of weeks ago on the Financial Conduct Authority. One much-discussed theme was the importance of consumer protection and trust. On the back of scandals such as those involving Equitable Life policyholders, it is clear that many consumers are concerned about whether they can trust the providers of financial services products, whether they can trust the regulatory regime to protect them, and whether the Government will discharge their obligations to protect the consumer interest. The significance of that cannot be overstated.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Given that the regulator was there to protect consumers and that the Government were standing behind the regulator, does my hon. Friend agree that, when that regulator failed to protect the consumer, the Government had a moral obligation to step in and protect policyholders?

[Ian Blackford]

I strongly agree. I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) commenting in the background—he made that same point in the debate, as did the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). There is unity in the House on wanting a savings culture. We want people to retire with decent pensionable income, but we will create that confidence only if we show that we are prepared to stand behind the Equitable Life consumers. They were let down by the company and the regulator, and the Government have that moral and ethical responsibility to step in. That should not be underestimated.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is partly about building intergenerational confidence? We want people to start saving for pensions in their late 20s and their 30s. They need to have confidence that that money will still be there in a pot in future, and that there is a proper system of regulation. This is about building confidence for those who will save in future, and not just about the Equitable Life policyholders who have been affected in this instance.

[Ian Blackford]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to associate myself with his comments. It is about creating that long-term stability in the financial services industry and ensuring that we have the right regulatory regime. We must have the right architecture for both private and public pension provision in this country. I hope all in the House have a shared interest in doing that. That is why the debate is so important, and why the Government must respond in the correct manner. How we deal with the long-running saga of Equitable Life is important in the context of his intervention.

Let us remind ourselves of the background. Equitable Life was a major provider of with-profits pension plans. A minority of policyholders invested in policies that offered a guaranteed annuity rate. That rate was set below the normal historical rates, but towards the end of the 1980s, that “normal” changed. Increasingly, the guaranteed annuity rate was over-generous and ultimately unaffordable to Equitable Life in the long run. In response, Equitable stopped sales and reduced the capital value of the pension pots by reducing discretionary bonuses. Guaranteed annuity rates were thus maintained only because the capital sum was far lower than had been expected.

Ultimately, GAR holders took legal action to stop Equitable from rigging pension payouts and won in the House of Lords in 2000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned in his speech. That judgment increased the financial burden on Equitable by about £1.5 billion, a sum that threatened its solvency. Equitable Life hoped to fill that gap by suspending distributions to policyholders and by selling the business, but it was unable to find a buyer. It ceased all further business and became a closed fund. It also had to reduce policy bonuses, and hence the ongoing pensions of investors. Pensions reductions of up to a third were common. It was a perfect storm.

Policyholders have long tried for compensation. Two ombudsman reports concluded that there had been maladministration and that injustice had been suffered. We should remind ourselves of what was said in the second ombudsman report. The conclusion stated:

“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation.”

I emphasise “appropriate compensation”.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I want to highlight the case of my constituent, Mary, an ex-machinist, and her husband, an ex-electrician’s mate. They worked all their lives contributing to our society and economy for decades and opted to invest a substantial amount of money in a scheme—an Equitable Life scheme. Due to years of negligence by the company and different Governments, the money was snatched away. Sadly, Mary’s husband passed away last year and she was given only a small amount of compensation. Her husband is not here to see justice being served. Surely we must act for Mary and other Marys across the UK?

[Ian Blackford]

I wholly concur with my hon. Friend and her constituent. Other Members have made the point that there is a sense that the Government must act quickly because the policyholders are dying. We have a responsibility to deal with the problem in a timely manner.

I am conscious of time, so I will try to wrap up quickly. The 2008 report also stated that regulation was not implemented properly, meaning

“consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected”.

We understand that that involved previous Governments—the Minister will be pleased to hear that not even I would blame the current Government for this one—but we do have a responsibility to reflect on what has been said and what actions we should take as a consequence.

All the parties involved accepted the ombudsman’s second report and accepted the case for compensation. During the inquiry, EMAG told the ombudsman that it had calculated the loss for those investing after 1990 at £3.2 billion if they remained with Equitable as against £4.6 billion if they had invested elsewhere. The final conclusion from the ombudsman states:

“The government should establish and fund a compensation scheme. The aim of such a scheme would be to put those who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”

We have all reflected on what the Government did with the £1.5 billion, but it is the issue of fairness that we keep coming back to.

This has already been mentioned, but it is worth stating again that before the 2010 election, the main Equitable Life policyholders’ action group, EMAG, lobbied MPs to seek support for compensation for its members. Perhaps as a result, the 2010 Conservative manifesto included this brief comment:

“We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”

It has been said today that the Government could not go beyond the £1.5 billion because of the financial circumstances at the time. Let us take this opportunity today to right that wrong and to plug some of that gap. I appeal to the Government to listen to all the points that have been made across the Chamber today and to do the right thing for the policyholders of Equitable Life.

Financial Conduct Authority

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this debate. He has been careful in raising the excesses that his constituents have suffered from over the past couple of years. He is to be commended for the wide range of issues he raised in his speech, including interest rate swaps, which many Members have talked about; Connaught, which has affected many people in our constituencies; and, of course, the issue of banking culture, which in many ways sparked the debate that we are having.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a wide-ranging speech in which he talked about entrepreneurialism and the importance of consumer protection. Again, he is to be commended for his speech.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) gave an interesting speech on the FCA and its duties. He also got on to the subject of football, which has been much discussed this evening. I cannot pass up the first opportunity I have had in this House to speak about the semi-finals of the league cup in Scotland this week. I am glad to say that the mighty Hibernian football club—the team that the term “sexy football” was meant for—managed to get through to the final in Glasgow on 13 March. As the Member of Parliament for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, that gives me a small problem, because the team Hibernian will face is Ross County—the small highland team from Dingwall that has done very well in the premier league over the past few years. In some respects I’ll be a winner if Hibs win, but I’ll still be a winner in the constituency if Ross County win.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) raised a number of important points about the complexities of financial regulation, and the difficulties faced by people in her constituency—indeed, in all our constituencies—in understanding how consumer protection should work under the FCA. We should pay much regard to that.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) made a good contribution about his personal experiences of running a business, and a number of Members expressed their frustration with the complexities of regulation that affect many small businesses. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke about banking culture and his continued lack of trust in the FCA. We should take that seriously, as should the FCA, because many people clearly feel that it is not discharging its obligations effectively. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) spoke about swaps—again that issue is important to many people, and there is a lack of confidence in the FCA.

I will not go through every Member’s speech because the themes were the same. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) mentioned RBS, and in particular GRG. It is important to reflect on the fact that RBS was state-owned. I know that the Government cannot interfere in the operations of RBS, but is it not a disgrace that at a time when we as taxpayers owned that institution, it behaved as it did to many companies?

It was a pleasure to listen to my old friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). At one time, I was connected to him—indeed, he was a client of mine—and in the past I have also been regulated by IMRO, the FSA and the FCA. Having announced that he has been regulated, I cannot help but reflect that some of his colleagues might prefer it if he were more regulated in this Chamber, but that is another matter.

Some important points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) about redress for companies that have been pushed into insolvency, and we finished with the 13th and last speaker, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who in some respects made the most important comments of the evening about the fact that the regulator and the Bank of England were asleep at the wheel when we had the financial crisis in 2007-08—the “almighty crash and crisis”, as he put it. It is worth reflecting on that, because the House should ensure that we have the architecture that stops us ever revisiting the kind of things that we faced in 2007-08. That, along with consumer protection, is the fundamental point. There should be no room for complacency or hesitation when it comes to reforming the City, and the FCA must reinstate its long-awaited inquiry into banking culture.

Bang on time for this debate, a story is emerging today of a fine for a British bank, this time in North America. Barclays has been fined £70 million by US regulators for its US dark pool trading operations. Dark pool operations allow investors to trade large blocks of shares but keep the prices private. Barclays has admitted misleading investors and violating security law in the way that it operated the pool. The New York Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission have both censured the bank for its misconduct. Ralph Silva, a banking analyst from Silva Research Network, told BBC News:

“The fines are a message, not a punishment. The levels are insignificant compared to the profits in this line of business… Regulators are telling the banks to close the vulnerabilities, something the banks have been reluctant to do because answers come with high operational price tags.”

That is a clear expression that the banks are still not getting it. Unacceptable behaviour is continuing, and we are probably not hearing the full scale of the malpractices that are going on. That is why the decision not to proceed with the review into banking culture is so wrong, and sends completely the wrong signal. I am concerned that the FCA’s move to forsake the critical review into behaviour, pay and culture surrounding the UK’s banking sector will have a detrimental impact on levels of consumer trust. The FCA must reinstate its long-awaited inquiry into banking culture.

We repeatedly hear legitimate concerns about the amount of time that it is taking for the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, but we have not had a fundamental review into the banking crisis and behaviour. We ought to remember the devastating impact of the financial crisis. Dealing with the cultural issues that were at the heart of it, and which in some senses still remain, is crucial. That is why the removal of the banking culture review is wrong, and we have to seriously question the judgment and leadership of the FCA in not pursuing it.

Much is said about the change to the Basel rules and the enhancement of capital ratios of the banks. It would be my contention that we need not just to review culture in a vacuum, but to do further analysis and stress-testing critically to examine what kind of leverage is appropriate to ensure that, in any financial crisis and any kind of significant fall in asset values, we as a country are never exposed again to banking failure. It is in that context that banking culture must be seen. We are still in a situation where there is a perception that, in any kind of banking failure the state will still intervene. It means that for the bankers the upside potential is all for them and the downside protection is all for us. There needs to be an alignment with society’s interests and that of the banks. We still have too much of a fixation with property assets and not enough with real assets, which can enhance our ability to deliver sustainable economic growth. These are all matters related to banking culture.

I have concerns that the FCA’s move to forsake the critical review into behaviour, pay and culture surrounding the UK’s banking sector will have a detrimental effect on consumer trust. Restoring consumer confidence in banking integrity is imperative in the aftermath of the financial crisis, where we saw consumer confidence drop. Statistics show some of the bad practices used before the 2008 crash are again being adopted in the banking sector. A recent study by the banking staff trade union Affinity surveyed staff at Lloyds Banking Group and TSB. It revealed that 55% believe that the banks are reverting to their old sales management techniques; 63% stated that the bank was more interested in the results they got and the objectives than in how they do our jobs; and 53% believe that the performance of TSB was just about sales. That is the view of the staff of those banks. Those statistics should be very worrying for all of us. They demonstrate the need for a robust review into banking culture.

A study conducted by KPMG showed that, between 2011 and 2014, Britain’s banks handed over 60% of their profits in fines and customer remediation, for a total of £38.7 billion. Those figures suggest that there should be no room for complacency or hesitation when it comes to reforming the City. Only in the past few days, a landmark legal pursuit has contested the banks’ £2 billion compensation scheme for inappropriate interest rate swaps. The hearing could have consequences for over 10,000 small and medium-sized enterprises that found themselves in the midst of the mis-selling scandal.

The appointment of Andrew Bailey as chief executive of the FCA raises legitimate questions about the FCA’s independence from the PRA and its dedication to consumer protection. Bailey must be subject to a full and proper confirmation hearing. Prior to his appointment with the FCA, Bailey was the deputy governor for Prudential Regulation and chief executive officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority, supervised by the Bank of England. As a conduct regulator, the FCA’s role is to protect consumers. Bailey’s appointment therefore raises questions about the FCA’s independence from the Prudential Regulatory Authority and its dedication to holding consumer protection at the heart of its aims and values.

In a speech to the Mansion House in June 2015, the Chancellor launched a “new settlement” with the banks, which was widely interpreted as a move away from the tougher measures put in place for the banks under Wheatley’s leadership. The Chancellor has suppressed the reverse burden of proof and slashed the bank levy. The developments lead to questions as to whether the FCA is on the wrong side of the Chancellor’s “new settlement”. The new chief executive of the FCA must be subject to a confirmation hearing, so his plans and views can be scrutinised in detail.

I am concerned that the FCA’s move to forsake the critical review into behaviour, pay and culture surrounding the UK banking sector will have a detrimental impact on consumer trust. The FCA must reinstate its long-awaited inquiry into banking culture. The appointment of Andrew Bailey as chief executive of the FCA raises legitimate questions about the independence of the FCA that must be addressed. Bailey must be subject to a full and proper confirmation hearing.

VAT Evasion: Internet Retailers

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for securing this important debate. We have heard two wonderful, passionate speeches, which conveyed the anger that many people feel towards the devastation that can be caused in our constituencies as a consequence of VAT evasion. As well as anger we have had humour, wit and wisdom, for which I thank the hon. Member for Daventry and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).

Online retailers evading VAT clearly has an impact on the legitimate economy in this country. There has also been a clear impact on jobs and on individuals in both the constituencies already mentioned, where businesses have been put at risk of going under. HMRC has a responsibility to take the matter seriously given the loss to the Exchequer and the impact on the economy, and I hope that the Minister will address that in his response. Given the growth of the industry and its importance, it was a worthwhile suggestion that consideration should be given to the establishment of a special unit at HMRC. Those who operate marketplaces, the likes of Amazon and eBay, also have a responsibility. For the life of me, I cannot quite understand why they would want to walk away from the issue. They have to consider the reputational damage to their businesses. If awareness of the problem grows, UK consumers would unquestionably expect to see Amazon and eBay take things more seriously.

I am grateful to the “fight against VAT fraud” campaigners, who have done so much to highlight the matter in great detail and who have brought forward case studies and other evidence. We have to take the matter seriously. HMRC has a duty to demonstrate that it is enforcing adequate measures to protect against VAT fraud, but online retailers must also recognise their responsibilities to society.

We have heard much about the figures from the campaigners, but the National Audit Office’s report on HMRC’s 2012-13 accounts stated that the total tax gap was estimated at £32 billion, of which £9.6 billion was related to VAT, equating to 10.1% of the actual VAT that could theoretically be collected. There is a wider point here about tax evasion, and we can all imagine the impact of £32 billion on the nation’s accounts and what it would do to the deficit and to our ability to invest in our public services. The NAO estimated that missing trader intra-Community fraud constituted between £0.5 billion and £1 billion of the VAT tax gap, but that was before the growth of these largely Chinese online retailers. It would be safe to assume that the figure has increased significantly over the past two or three years.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) already mentioned the fact that the “fight against VAT fraud” campaign has identified more than 500 fraudulent retailers, generating as much as £300 million in sales in 2014, and there is the potential for growth over the coming years. The figures are eye-watering and must be taken seriously. The Government have a responsibility to do that, but so do the platform operators. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility best practices should lead to these institutions recognising their responsibilities in establishing a fair marketplace and one where they have a duty of responsibility to make sure that those using their platforms are legitimate, and are meeting their VAT obligations and their obligations in all areas of taxation.

There are also wider issues with some retailers which seek to mitigate their own responsibilities to pay tax in the UK through various mechanisms. While this country has welcomed the likes of Amazon into our marketplace and recognises the attraction of such operators in adding to consumer choice, Amazon and others must recognise their social responsibility and that paying an appropriate level of tax is the price of doing business in this country. In providing a platform for other retailers, Amazon, eBay and others have a duty to make sure that businesses established outside the UK, but who are warehousing and dispatching goods located in the UK, are paying VAT. Such ventures are classed as non-established taxable persons, often referred to as NETPs.

The “fight against VAT fraud” campaign, which was established by legitimate retailers, has made a number of recommendations. Among them is the registration of VAT numbers, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, which must happen and could be done quickly. The campaign also states that a failure to display a VAT number and VAT status could be seen as a breach of UK tax laws, a theory which is informed by the rules and regulations under the EU distance selling arrangements. The issue was the subject of a parliamentary question, answered on 16 December, when the Minister said:

“There is no requirement in tax legislation for a VAT-registered person to declare to a customer that they are registered or to provide a VAT registration number, unless they make a supply to another VAT-registered person, in which case they are obliged to issue a VAT invoice including their VAT number. However businesses are required to comply with the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 concerning the provision of this information.”

That should be revisited. It would at the least provide some transparency. If retailers have to have a VAT number when selling to other VAT-registered persons, what is the issue in extending that to all transactions?

The matter needs to be considered in the wider context of the debate on tax evasion and avoidance. The Scottish Government’s approach to devolved taxes demonstrates that we are serious about tackling tax avoidance in Scotland. We have taken a simple, clear but robust approach to tackling artificial tax avoidance. The Scottish general anti-avoidance rule was established by the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 and will allow Revenue Scotland to take counteraction against tax avoidance arrangements that are considered to be artificial, even if they otherwise operate within the letter of the law. The Scottish general anti-abuse rule is significantly wider than the corresponding UK GAAR as set out in the Finance Act 2013, which is based on a narrower test of “abuse” rather than “artificiality”. Sadly, we have only limited powers to tackle tax avoidance on the land and buildings transaction tax and the Scottish landfill tax, but I expect that is a debate for another day. Under the current powers, including the Calman income tax powers, we have no power to tackle income tax avoidance, which falls to the UK Government and HMRC. Even after Smith is implemented, because income tax will be shared, we will still not have powers to tackle avoidance, which will also remain with the UK Government and HMRC.

The UK tax system is complex and inefficient. Unnecessary complexity, through exemptions, reliefs, deductions and allowances, creates opportunities for tax avoidance. HMRC attributed a £7.1 billion tax gap to evasion and avoidance in 2013-14 out of a total tax gap of £34 billion. Isobel d’Inverno, convener of the tax law sub-committee of the Law Society of Scotland and director of corporate tax at Brodies, has said:

“The general anti-avoidance rule that we have got in the Scottish legislation is much fiercer than the UK one. It’s a very much firmer ‘Keep off the grass’ sign than the UK one is. Revenue Scotland also appears very determined to collect all the tax that is due. There’s a whole series of different things that suggests they're going to have a far more pro-active approach to stopping tax avoidance.”

In conclusion, we are dealing here with the specific issue of the VAT avoidance of many online retailers, but we are all responsible, particularly the UK Government, for making sure that we act tough on tax avoidance.

Guaranteed Income for Retirees

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on guaranteed income for retirees.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to see the Economic Secretary here to respond to the debate, given the popularity of pensioners to the Government and to the rest of us. I know there is always some conflict between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury regarding who has responsibility for such matters.

I am delighted that we are having this debate. We in the Scottish National party believe that the Government have a duty of care to ensure that our elderly population has security of income in retirement, and healthy and fulfilling lives. The Government should also ensure that they carry on as much as possible of the progress made in the last few years in ending pensioner poverty. I want to focus specifically on the pension freedoms that were introduced in April of this year, and the responsibilities that we in the SNP believe the Government should have for pensioner protection.

We in the SNP support many of the measures introduced over the last few years to encourage and enhance the growth of pension saving, while recognising that there is still some way to go before we reach a level of saving that matches the desire of many of our citizens to have an adequate level of income in retirement. To that extent, we support auto-enrolment and look forward to taking part in the debate over the coming months and years about how it can be strengthened, based on the three pillars of individual, employer and Government incentives to engage in pension saving.

It is in that regard of encouraging pension provision that we should take stock of the pension freedoms introduced in April and, in particular, consider what steps might be appropriate to ensure that the principle of securing an income in retirement is supported and fostered. When pension freedoms were introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that people

“should be trusted with their own finances”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 793.]

Although that is an admirable aspiration, it must come with the recognition that there has to be protection from pensioners aggressively running down pension pots to the extent that pensioner poverty could creep back on to the agenda. We should be mindful of the fact that a pension is a deferred income. It is not a cash machine, but is there to deliver security in retirement.

The untested nature of the pension reforms poses a potential risk to individuals and to the state. It is essential that the Government closely monitor consumer outcomes and identify risks to the state and to individuals over the longer term.

In the context of this debate, the Strategic Society Centre published a paper in July year entitled “Income, Security and Wellbeing”. The report was commissioned to explore the potential impact on people’s retirements of lower private pension incomes that might result from the freedom of choice changes. The Strategic Society Centre undertook quantitative research, looking at how the level of guaranteed income affects people’s experience of retirement. It found that, regardless of the level of someone’s financial wealth, the level of guaranteed income is significantly associated with various aspects of wellbeing and leisure, including going to the cinema, reading a daily newspaper, taking a holiday and participating in community groups and other activities. The study also found that income is associated with how people feel about their life and whether they report, “The conditions of my life are excellent,” and “I have got the important things in life that I want.”

In the light of the research findings, the Strategic Society Centre set out a number of policy recommendations, including the need for the Government to actively

“promote receipt of a guaranteed income in pension policy to improve the wellbeing of retirees. Educate savers before retirement about the role of guaranteed income for a good retirement. Include information about the importance of guaranteed income to wellbeing in retirement in Pension Wise guidance and information. Ensure receipt of a decent, guaranteed retirement income is the default option for DC”—

defined contribution—

“pension savers. Undertake regular research into the effect of the April 2015 changes on older people’s wellbeing.”

The Strategic Society Centre study has been followed up by a study into pension flexibilities by the Social Market Foundation, which has left me increasingly concerned that the Government have not yet put in place adequate safeguards for older people opting to free up pension assets.

With life expectancy increasing and savers gaining unprecedented access to their pension savings, the Government have an obligation to oversee individuals planning ahead and to support society to plan for the future by making the public aware of the importance of securing a guaranteed income for life. As I have said, pensions are a deferred income and should not be seen as a cash machine. We in the SNP are not against people having an element of choice, but there must be a guaranteed income before funds can be drawn down, to protect individuals in later life.

Before April 2015, 75% of people with defined-contribution pension schemes used them to purchase an annuity. We should also recall that the opportunity existed for pensioners to take up to 25% of their pension pot as a tax-free lump sum. That mixed ability to draw down cash and to secure a regular income is still, to us, far and away the most attractive option for most pensioners. A key advantage of annuities is that they provide a guaranteed income throughout retirement, protecting individuals from longevity insurance and investment risk. However, annuities have become unpopular with some consumers, partly because annuity rates have fallen, but also because of reports by important bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority, which have highlighted ways in which the market has not always worked well for consumers. Also, many prospective pensioners did not shop around, and whether consumers were getting value for money was therefore a cause for concern. We acknowledge all those things. There was, and is, a case for reform, but in our opinion the challenge was to enhance the market for annuities.

Many people welcomed the principle of increased choice introduced by the Government, but there were also concerns that that would bring with it a significant burden of responsibility on individuals to understand the complexities of the choices they were making, leaving them to bear the risk that the value of their savings might fall and that they might even exhaust them prematurely, leaving them dependent on the state pension later in retirement.

There is also the potential for scamming. The report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, entitled “Pension freedom guidance and advice”, states:

“Readier access to pension pots combined with the difficulties consumers have in making decisions regarding retirement finances mean that the pension freedom reforms have increased the potential for scamming.”

Regulators are also working to raise awareness. The FCA has launched the ScamSmart campaign and has taken enforcement action in a number of cases.

I acknowledge that the Government’s establishment of Pension Wise is an important step, but take-up of the service has been limited. The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the Government urgently redouble their publicity efforts about pension scams and that the FCA tighten its scam awareness and reporting requirements for regulated firms.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. He mentioned that there have been abuses since the new pensions regulations came into effect, and it is right that the matter should be looked at. He is also right that there should be some guarantees and better policing. In the past people took out annuities for mortgages, and I am sure we all remember the mortgage scandal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real danger that the same thing could happen in this case unless there is proper policing and regulation?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I agree that all of us in this House have a responsibility to ensure that an adequate level of protection is in place for consumers. We must learn from the large number of mis-selling scandals that have happened over many years. I am concerned that, as things stand, there are not yet adequate safeguards in place to protect consumers from the changes.

The Work and Pensions Committee described the scarcity of information about Pension Wise as being

“not conducive to effective scrutiny”

and asked the Government to publish statistics on a quarterly basis, including on the take-up of the different channels of guidance and advice, and on the reasons for not taking them up. The FCA claims that eight out of 10 savers would have got a better deal if they had shopped around when choosing the best product for retirement. That illustrates another reason for clear, understandable, accessible guidance for consumers. The untested nature of the reform demands close monitoring and data collection.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To add to what he has said, when I questioned the FCA in the Select Committee on the Treasury, they said they were worried that not enough time had been given for new products to emerge for savers drawing down their pension pot. The Chancellor announced the change rather precipitously, and a longer timescale might have allowed those new products to emerge.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with my hon. Friend, although I come back to the fundamental point that what we need is reform of the annuity market. I am not sure that the products that may come to the market over the coming period will do what we need them to do, in allowing the level of consumer protection and choice that we are talking about.

Witnesses to the inquiry by the Work and Pensions Committee, such as the Financial Services Consumer Panel and the Pensions Policy Institute, said that it was essential to enable the policy to develop in the light of experience. The Committee recommended that the Government publish regularly data encompassing

“customer characteristics including pension pot size and other sources of retirement income…take-up of each channel of guidance and advice…reasons given for not taking up guidance and advice…subsequent decisions taken; and…reasons given for those decisions.”

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is extraordinarily timely. Does he agree that there is a particular challenge with the gender divide? Women in particular are exposed to difficulties, largely because their pension pots tend to be smaller. Added to that, the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign pointed out that after the Pensions Act 2011, some women born in the 1950s were given little notice and utterly inadequate guidance in preparation for the sudden extension of the retirement age. Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of that and the inadequate information on pension freedom, women are exposed to particular risks?

[Ian Blackford]

Yes, I do, and I was going to come to the issues of gender, because they are important in the context of this debate. My hon. Friend makes some reasonable points. When we talk about the risk of pensioners exhausting their pension pot, we know that that is particularly true for women, given two factors. He alluded to the first, which is that women in general tend to have smaller pension pots. They also tend to have longer life expectancy, and there are particular issues in that regard. The second factor relates to the reforms to the state pension, which I argue have not allowed for a significant length of transition, thus yet again exposing women to a much greater extent than men to the negative side of the changes. I would like to see the House come back to that debate.

The Financial Services Consumer Panel and the Pensions Policy Institute called for a rolling research programme to tackle the longer-term consequences of pension freedom decisions. Some organisations have called for action to require providers to offer default options for people who do not make a decision. The Pensions Policy Institute has argued that that would mean people being offered something with an element of life expectancy insurance that would kick in at some point when they get older.

We must learn from experience elsewhere. The Social Market Foundation has looked at overseas experience to see whether there are lessons for the UK. The SMF report, “Golden Years? What freedom and choice will mean for UK pensioners”, modelled the potential long-term outcomes for UK retirees based on outcomes in Australia and the USA. It looked at three scenarios: a “cautious Australian” who decumulates their pension wealth by less than 1% a year; a “quick-spending Australian” who decumulates very quickly and exhausts their pot by the age of 75; and a “typical American” who draws down his pension pot by 8% a year. The report’s key findings include the conclusion that:

“UK retirees are at risk of pension pot exhaustion.”

Those who follow the “typical American” path or the “quick-spending Australian” path would on average exhaust their pot by retirement year 17 and year 10 respectively.

Retirees are at risk of low replacement rates. Retirees who over-consume in early years of retirement may enjoy a rate of income closer to their working income for some time, but will then face much lower rates later in life. Retirees are at risk of low incomes. The new state pension and pension credit mean that retirees are at a low risk of falling into poverty, but retirees are at substantial risk of falling below the 70% median low-income threshold in later life if they spend their pensions quickly.

Preservation of pension wealth is possible through under-consumption, but has big drawbacks. The “cautious Australian” path results in a very low risk of running out of pension wealth, but means that people would receive very low levels of income as a consequence. That can mean a reduced income and lower replacement rate, as well as subdued demand across the broader economy. Retirees face variation in investment returns and uncertain incomes. Investment returns can result in huge variations in incomes in retirement and in the age at which pension savings run out. There are significant risks to the state as a consequence. Decumulation paths could also mean fiscal risks to the state associated with the costs of increased claims for means-tested benefits.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. What he is saying prompted a thought in my mind: if pensions are mishandled by individuals, we get a problem later in life with the need to pay for care, which adds to pensioner poverty. People are struggling to pay for care, but pensions freedom could make that worse if it is not regulated properly.

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. One of the examples given in the SMF report is of an individual with a pension pot of £184,000. Many people would consider that to be a reasonable sized pension pot. However, based on the behaviours I have described, it would not be unexceptional for them to exhaust such a pension pot and have to rely on the state in later life for support, particularly with council tax and care costs. That is why, for two reasons, this is such an important issue for us to discuss: first, because we are exposing the consumers of this country to risk; and, secondly, because we run the risk of placing an additional burden on the state as a consequence.

Specific sub-groups are also exposed to enhanced levels of risk. Those sub-groups include women and early retirees who are likely to face a longer period of retirement; those without other savings or assets to fall back on, particularly non-homeowners; and those with defined-contribution pension savings only, who will not have other private income to top up their budgets. The report recommends that the Government develop an early warning system to monitor closely what retirees do with their pension savings and identify risks to groups of individuals and to the state. That would involve the creation of a retirement risk dashboard to help the Government to monitor retirement decisions and to provide a view on long-term outcomes for consumers and the state. By establishing personal pension alerts, it would also allow for policy makers to intervene where appropriate with the sub-groups the Government have identified as being at particularly high risk.

The level of uncertainty about the impact on savers is concerning. The Office for Budget Responsibility said that there was a high level of uncertainty about the Exchequer impact of the reforms and that the impact depended on take-up and other behavioural responses, which were uncertain. The OBR said:

“Some people will temporarily increase pension saving in order to benefit from tax-free lump sum withdrawals. It is possible that funds will be redirected from annuities and into other assets, such as other financial products or housing. It is also possible that such funds could be used to finance consumer spending”.

Would we consider that to be desirable?

The available data for the first quarter of 2015 show sales of drawdown products increasing and those of annuities reducing. The number of income drawdown contracts sold by Association of British Insurers members during quarter one of 2015 increased by 64% over the past year, from 6,700 to 11,500. The number of annuities sold continued to fall, with 20,600 annuities sold in quarter one, compared with 28,700 in the previous quarter and 74,100 in quarter one of 2014. The volume of interest is indicated by the 80% increase in provider call volumes during the first six months compared with the same period in 2014. A consequence of the changes is the massive £2.5 billion paid out as cash to customers in the first six months. To put that into context, £2.5 billion has been invested in other pension products over the same period. In other words, 50% of the value of pension pots accessed has been cashed in over the past six months.

We do not know what the long-term developments will be, but that must surely raise concern that such a high percentage of cash has been withdrawn. If we put that in the wider context of defined-contribution pension pots, there is today approximately £175 billion held in those pots by more than 2.2 million consumers. Do we as a society want to see pensioners draw down their pension pots at such an aggressive pace? Frankly, I believe we should not. There will be a price paid both in terms of pension pots running out and, ultimately, as has been said by various hon. Members, the state will have to pick up the pieces and support those whose income has gone.

To reflect again on some of the numbers, 60% of all cash lump sums have been paid out to people younger than 60 and 80% to those younger than 65. In 95% of cases where cash lump sums have been accessed, the entire fund has been withdrawn, and fewer than one in 10 of those accessing their pension pots are using the Pension Wise service. The Government need to take on board the evidence of what has been happening and explore other options. Reinstating a requirement to annuitise would help to address some of the concerns.

The UK Government must learn the lessons from abroad. Concerns over the rates of exhaustion of pension savings and the subsequent impact on retirement income led the Australian Government to commission an independent review of their retirement system.

The Murray inquiry published a range of recommendations for the Australian financial system in December 2014, including a recommendation for schemes to put in place a default comprehensive income product for retirement to address longevity risk. In October, the Australian Government announced their intention to implement the inquiry’s retirement income default recommendation, and a consultation is expected later this year.

We also need to look at affordability—for example, by introducing measures to keep costs down; introducing products such as a NEST-style decumulation option to act as a beacon of good value; enabling the state to play a bigger role in providing a low-risk, good value alternative or capping charges in drawdown products; allowing Pension Wise to provide a personalised service or recommend specific products or options to consumers; or strengthening the disclosure and governance requirements relating to complex retirement income products.

I want to engage positively with the Government on how we in Parliament can together discharge our obligations to those who will be accessing their pension pots not just in the years, but the decades to come. Although it is understandable that we want to create opportunities for those with spending pots to make their own decisions about their plans for accessing cash, it must be done from the premise that we give clear guidance that securing a regular income in retirement should be the default position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing a debate on such an important issue. It is fair to say that I am a fair bit further away from this issue than most of my colleagues; nevertheless, I appreciate this opportunity to speak.

I am sure that most Members present will agree that the current Government—any Government, for that matter—have a responsibility to ensure that all members of our elderly population have a secure form of income upon retirement to enable them to live comfortable, healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as a responsibility to continue efforts to end pensioner poverty. Any move by the Government to encourage and enhance the prospects of people saving for retirement and to ensure that all our citizens maintain a decent standard of income must be welcomed. It is for that reason that, in the context of pension freedoms, the Scottish National party supports auto-enrolment. We look forward to taking part in the debate on how it can be strengthened, based on the inclusion of the individual and the employer and Government incentives to engage in pension saving.

With that in mind, we must pay close attention to the scrutiny and constructive criticisms that have been made of the pension freedom reforms. First, there clearly needs to be an increase in data collection. The Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into the changes asked whether people are adequately supported in making good and informed decisions, and concluded that appropriate information and monitoring arrangements are not in place to provide the answers. Criticising the Government’s failure to publish adequate statistics on the pension freedom policy, the report said:

“The Government’s reticence in publishing statistics on the effects of its pension freedom policy, a full six months after the reforms, is unacceptable. The scarcity of information regarding Pension Wise in particular is not conducive to effective scrutiny. It is also not conducive to effective policy: it would be fortunate in the extreme if such radical change operated as hoped without any need for adjustment.”

Many bodies in the pensions policy area have made similar observations. If we are to be able to make informed decisions and adequately respond to the changes the reforms are making to people’s lives and the decisions they make, we must be watching closely and at least attempting to collate in-depth and satisfactory data. That way, we will be able to form a real-life picture and idea of what is going on and to respond appropriately.

Secondly, more effort needs to be put into educating people so that they are equipped with the information and knowledge to make informed decisions. The potential for negative consumer outcomes arising from disengagement, low awareness of retirement risks and poor financial capability is likely to be compounded by supply-side failures. The FCA thematic review and retirement income market study identified continued failures: 60% of defined-contribution pension customers did not switch providers when they bought an annuity, despite the fact that 80% could get a higher—in many cases, significantly higher—income on the open market. The FCA found that 91% of those purchasing enhanced annuities could have got a better deal by shopping around. It also found that consumers are highly sensitive to how options are presented to them. Savers reaching retirement face a much more complex landscape than previous generations, and they will need support to make sense of their options and to make sensible choices that match their needs and preferences.

Even before the announcement of the pension reforms, the pensions industry was still working through many issues, despite seven years of heightened scrutiny and regulatory oversight. As many will know, lack of information has been a problem for some time. Given the lack of data on how pensions are being affected now, it is important to look at some of the few statistics that we do have.

[Ian Blackford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue consumers face in the landscape of choices she eloquently describes is that they often do not consider their own life expectancy—that they might live for another 30 or 40 years or even longer? When people look at their experience of annuities, that is often part of the problem: they might consider they are getting a poor deal from their annuity, but that is because they are not taking into account how long they might live and how long they might have to fund their lifestyle for.

[Mhairi Black]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I was actually about to get on to that point.

In terms of the few statistics we do have, the Social Market Foundation has looked at the lessons the UK can learn from overseas experiences. My hon. Friend spoke about the different stereotypes in terms of how people engage with their pensions—the cautious Australian, the quick-spending Australian and the typical American. One of the report’s key findings was that UK retirees are at risk of pension pot exhaustion specifically because they underestimate how long they will live. In fact, those who follow the typical American path or the quick-spending Australian path would, on average, exhaust their entire pot by retirement years 17 and 10 respectively.

Retirees are at risk of low replacement rates. Retirees who over-consume in the early years of retirement might well enjoy a decent income for a good few years, but if they live a lot longer than they predicted, they find themselves on much lower rates later on in life and may completely exhaust their pension, putting the responsibility on to the state to fill the gap.

We should also consider the fact that the number of income drawdown contracts sold by ABI members during 2015 increased by 64% over the previous year, from 6,700 to 11,500. The number of annuities sold has continued to fall, with 20,600 sold during that quarter, compared with 28,700 the previous quarter and 74,100 in the same quarter in 2014. There was an 80% increase in provider call volumes during the first six months, compared with the same period in 2014. As has been mentioned, £2.5 billion was paid out as cash to customers in that period. Some 60% of all cash lump sums have been paid out to people younger than 60—those who have a considerable time left to live, given that life expectancy is now 80-plus. In 80% of cases, those who have taken out cash lump sums were under 65. In 95% of cases where cash lump sums have been accessed, the entire fund was withdrawn. As for evidence that people have engaged with Pension Wise, whether face to face, over the phone or by email, the reality is that fewer than one in 10 of those accessing their pension pots have used the service. It is clear that more can be done to educate people adequately.

My last point relates to the Government’s position. Concerns about rates of exhaustion of pension savings and the subsequent impact on retirement income led the Australian Government, which we look to for at least some idea of where pensions are going, to commission an independent review of their retirement system. The resulting Murray inquiry published a range of recommendations for the Australian financial system, including that schemes set in place a default comprehensive income product for retirement. On 20 October, the Australian Government announced their intention to implement the inquiry’s retirement income default recommendation, and a consultation is expected later this year.

It seems only reasonable and responsible, therefore, for the Government to tell people, “Look, the choices are there for you. It is not for us to tell you how to spend your money, but we recommend that you use your pension for the exact purpose it was created for and that you consider how long you will live for and how much money you will have, so that you engage with your pension appropriately.”

I welcome the debate, and I hope the Government take heed of some of the concerns that have been raised by myself, my colleagues and the relevant independent bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is right; the world where we obliged people to buy an annuity income with their retirement savings was not perfect. Often they did not shop around—the data from the Financial Conduct Authority suggest that about eight out of 10 consumers could have got a better deal by shopping around—so I cannot agree with what I believe was SNP policy. That seems to be to end the current situation where there is more flexibility, and once again to require people to buy an annuity. However, I recognise that Members across the House have concerns about customers and how they are supported as they make perhaps their most important long-term financial decision, other than purchasing a home.

[Ian Blackford]

I just want to clarify something. I absolutely share the concern that the annuity market was not working properly. Where there is a difference of opinion is that we believe that the market should be reformed. We need greater choice in the annuity market: for example, we need to think about how we explain index-linked products in the annuity market, and circumstances such as lower life expectancy must be reflected. We must consider those things in the light of experience of what has happened with pension freedom.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I agree that we need to evaluate the measures, which is why this is such a timely debate. It is extremely important that, as people take advantage of the new pension freedoms, they have the right information and the tools they need to make an informed and confident decision about their financial future. I recognise that there is a range of different circumstances and that one size does not fit all.

It might be helpful if I summarise some of the changes made over the past five years to the pension landscape to strengthen the finances of people in retirement. They include ensuring that there is no enforced retirement age at 65, and strengthening the first pillar of retirement income, the basic state pension, which now rises with a triple-lock—increasing by the greater of 2.5%, earnings or inflation every year. That has been very important cumulatively over the past five years—the income replacement of the state pension is now at its highest level since 1992—and we have pledged to continue that throughout this Parliament.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am just setting out the background. I will address the points that colleagues raised later in my speech.

The changes we are making to simplify the state pension are also important, because they are going to set a new level for the state pension that is higher than the means-tested threshold that we have had in this country historically. That is very important, because we do not want those who draw down their retirement savings to be thrown on to means-tested benefits. I believe I am right in saying that that is a crucial difference from the situation in Australia. We have also safeguarded support for older people in other ways, such as providing free bus passes, eye tests, television licences and so on.

The changes we made in April are an integral part of the whole landscape. I will describe for the benefit of all hon. Members what we think success for the reforms looks like: a vibrant and competitive retirement income market with a range of different products that give people the flexibility and security that is right for them, and well informed, engaged consumers who can access the guidance and advice they need. As more people are automatically enrolled in employer schemes, more people engage with the process. More than 5 million more people are now saving for a retirement income than were in 2010, and by the full roll-out in a couple of years’ time, we will have almost 9 million additional new savers through automatic enrolment, saving £15 billion a year more in aggregate.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very gracious with her time. As I said, we fully support auto-enrolment. It is fantastic that there has been an increase in saving and that both employers and employees are contributing, but will she reflect on the situation that could develop? People will have a greater ability to access the pension pot that they are saving into and take out cash at 55, but I am concerned that employers may be disincentivised from contributing to the pension scheme if they see that those who benefit from it can walk away with a cash pot at 55.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Methinks the hon. Gentleman is worrying too much. At this point, I think we will just welcome the fact that £15 billion a year more is going into pension saving in this country. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) can say to her generation that the earlier they start, the better, given the cumulative impact of the wonders of compound interest. Nevertheless, I take on board the point the hon. Gentleman made.

The hon. Gentleman said that providers may not have time to get ready and may not have the right kinds of products. In fact, providers have stepped up to the challenge: the systems requirements were admittedly very challenging, but more than 90% of people are now being offered flexibility within their existing scheme and something like a quarter of the largest firms are planning to launch new products in the next six months, so there has been real innovation and engagement with what customers want. We have moved away from the inflexibility of the old annuity market.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the recent data from the ABI stating that £4.7 billion was paid out in the first six months. The first six months will not necessarily be representative of the settled state of the market, because obviously there has been a lot of pent-up demand, but it is fair to say that in that six-month period £2.5 billion has been invested in income drawdown products and £2.2 billion in annuities. That does not suggest that people are shying away from the annuity market, which we hope continues to be successful and an important part of people’s retirement planning. I am delighted that so many people have already taken advantage of the freedoms and that many providers have stepped up to deliver for their members.

Many hon. Members asked about Pension Wise, the Government’s free and impartial guidance service. It, too, is playing an important role. There have been more than 30,000 guidance appointments and 1.7 million hits on its website so far. Hon. Members alleged that only one in 10 people are making use of Pension Wise, but we dispute that in the sense that people will be getting financial advice, sometimes from a regulated adviser, or they may get information, guidance or advice through their provider. There is a range of different ways in which people can inform themselves; Pension Wise is one of them. It is free, impartial and backed by the Government.

Pension Wise prompts users to consider their life expectancy and any health issues and lifestyle factors they have, and it links to the Office for National Statistics life expectancy calculator, which I am sure everyone in the room has visited. All in all, that is excellent news, but we are always on the lookout for ways to make the service more useful. Last month’s report from the Work and Pensions Committee, of which the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South is a member, was welcome. It noted the progress we have already made in ensuring that the reforms deliver for consumers, but made it clear that the job is not yet done.

In line with the Committee’s recommendations, we are considering a number of developments to make Pension Wise even more useful. For example, we are looking at how appointments can be tailored to individuals. In the summer Budget, we opened it up to people from the age of 50 onwards, and we are developing more online tools for the website and calculators that people can use to see how the new pension freedoms relate to their particular circumstances. We are trying to make the website more interactive, and the team has done a fantastic job in delivering that to such a tight timeframe. We are looking to amend the content of Pension Wise appointments to ensure they are more tailored to people in the 50 to 55 age bracket, who are not yet able to take advantage of the pension freedoms but want to start thinking about the options available to them.

The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) rightly mentioned the financial advice market review. I am delighted to hear that he supports the initiative. The Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority are reviewing what he called the advice gap—the fact that between guidance and paid-for financial advice, there is a gap for ordinary people who do not want to pay for a financial adviser or are not able to afford one at their stage in life. The aim of the review is to come up with a package of reforms, along the lines of those that the hon. Gentleman outlined, to ensure the financial advice market works for everybody. I hope he will write to the review with his recommendations.

Advice, in and of itself, is not enough. It is important that we supplement our guidance provision and review it on an ongoing basis. We must ensure that we make the most of Pension Wise, which focuses on pension freedoms, the Money Advice Service, which focuses on some of the other aspects of financial markets, and the Pensions Advisory Service, which is run out of the Department for Work and Pensions. We must make those services more effective for consumers. Alongside the financial advice market review, we are also looking at the guidance and hope to have some findings ahead of next year’s Budget, so that people get the help they need to take such important long-term decisions.

Several hon. Members mentioned scams, and the Work and Pensions Committee report also flagged that risk, which we recognise is not new. Pension scammers were previously trying to get people to take money out of their pensions before the age of 55, causing a lot of harm in the marketplace, but I agree that it is an important matter. Given that consumers have been given unprecedented freedom and choice in how they access their retirement savings, we appreciate that fraudsters will use that as an opportunity to try and exploit people. An effective strategy to target scams must bring together all the relevant parts of Government and work with providers to focus on both the prevention and the disruption of scams. That is what we are doing and will continue to do. We have set up Project Bloom, a multi-agency taskforce led by the National Crime Agency, which is joining up the various Departments involved, the regulators, anti-fraud groups and police forces to tackle scams. It is worth reiterating here how important it is that we remind consumers that they should never engage with anyone who telephones them out of the blue offering help with their pension. I encourage all hon. Members to get that message out widely in their communities. I emphasise that Pension Wise will never call without a consumer having previously asked them to.

The pensions regulators have their own pension scam campaigns to raise awareness of the issue. The FCA runs ScamSmart and the Pensions Regulator runs Scorpion. Warnings are sent out with paperwork from pension providers and both of them give advice to businesses and consumers on how to protect against scams. Pension Wise also alerts customers to the risk of scams during guidance sessions and on its website, and firms have a duty to flag the risk of investment scams, when appropriate, to their members as part of the FCA’s retirement risk warning rules. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, who asked me about this during a Work and Pensions Committee hearing, wanted to know about some of the numbers. So far this year, since the pension freedoms were launched, incidents reported to Action Fraud are lower than the year before, but I completely agree with her that we must remain on top of this. To be frank, we have to be tough, because one scam succeeding is one too many.

Moving on to women who have been affected by the change in pension age, I am probably one of the few women affected who actually welcomes the fact that I will be able to do this wonderful job for longer, but I realise that not everyone feels that way. To respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Torfaen about the number of meetings that have been held, the number of updates and the transition protection and his Hansard reference, which shows what an effective researcher he is—he is a published biographer—I will defer to my colleague Baroness Altman, who will write to him with the details.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South also asked about the Pension Wise data and when it will be published. In ministerial speak, I believe that the word is “shortly” so it should be up on the website soon. We will write to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee as soon as that happens so that he is the first to know.

I have responded to most hon. Members’ points, but I will remain on my feet in case anyone feels that they have not had a chance to ask their question or to get one answered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I thank all hon. Members who have participated this afternoon. We have had a good debate on the issues as we see them. I thank all who have contributed and expressed legitimate concerns about the consequences of the pension freedoms.

We all share the view that we need to architect a pension structure conducive to people having the best outcomes possible in their elderly years. I encourage the Government to look at the evidence of the first six months. I accept that some of the pension drawdown of the first six months was pent-up demand. None the less, as the Minister has conceded, £2.5 billion is a considerable sum to be drawn out of pension pots—50% of all the cash that was exorcised from them over that period. We have to look at that closely.

I remain concerned that pensioners will be put in a position of some financial hardship if they expose themselves fully to running down their pension pots. We accept that over the past few decades considerable moves have taken place to eradicate pensioner poverty, which we are all delighted about, and that there is little likelihood of pensioners falling below the threshold of 60% of median income, which we used to use to define relative poverty, but none the less, on the evidence from the Social Market Foundation, we can see that pensioners would fall below the 80% and perhaps even 70% income thresholds. That should concern us. It is right to continue to debate such matters and we should see if we can work together to provide more certainty and security for pensioners.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policy on guaranteed income for retirees.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jon Cruddas]

A collective hit of £14 billion on taxpayers does not seem to be good, rigorous or empirically grounded economics, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let me return to the question of bank deposits. Apart from anything else, the lack of diversity in the UK’s banking system leaves us extremely vulnerable; all our eggs are literally in one basket. If we look at the international evidence on how those different types of bank perform, it quickly becomes clear that the Minister’s claims simply do not stack up.

Let us take shareholder owned banks first. Let us not forget that in 2008 it was shareholder-owned commercial banks that brought the global financial system to its knees. Yes, they were “innovative”—they created some of the most innovative toxic financial instruments the world has ever seen—but much of that innovation was what Adair Turner has termed “socially useless”; it served no real economic purpose except to inflate the profits of the banks that produced them while quietly spreading dangerous levels of risk to every corner of our financial system.

Members do not have to take my word for that. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards concluded that the shareholder model itself had a large part to play in the story:

“Shareholders have incentives to encourage directors to pursue high risk strategies in pursuit of short-term returns... In the run-up to the financial crisis, shareholders failed to control risk-taking in banks, and indeed were criticising some for excessive conservatism.”

In other words, the ownership model to which the Government are so keen to return RBS is the same model that helped to bring the bank down in the first place.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could remind the House which party was in government when the financial crisis took place and what it was doing with the regulator.

[Jon Cruddas]

Labour was in government, and many of us were arguing that we should have created this opportunity to diversify forms of banking products. The hon. Gentleman might have meant the debate about the future of the Post Office, and many of our colleagues were involved in trying to articulate the case for a Post Office bank that could offer robust, bona fide financial products to communities such as mine, which were being vacated by the big commercial banks. We have a consistent theme developing among the contributions from the Opposition side of the House, and it is not an either/or political point-scoring exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I often agree with him, but on this point I do not. I am an old English liberal free trader and I think that the fundamental problem is the chronically inflationary system of fiat money. I hope that he will forgive me if I talk instead about the Royal Bank of Scotland, because I have put the other issues on the record since my maiden speech.

I have two long-standing misgivings that come to a head in RBS. The first is about the effect that the international financial reporting standards have on our ability to see the true and fair position of banks. The other is about the stress tests. I am grateful to Professor Kevin Dowd, Gordon Kerr and John Butler of Cobden Partners for their advice, but any errors or omissions are my own. I should say that I have no financial interest whatever in Cobden Partners, although it was a spin-out from the Cobden Centre, which I co-founded to advance the ideas on which they are now working.

I have said many times that the IFRS allow, enable and encourage banks to overstate their asset values, and therefore their profits, and to understate their losses. In May, we conducted an exercise in which we compared the accounts of RBS with the statement of its accounts in the asset protection scheme. We believed that its capital was overstated by £20 billion. We had a meeting with RBS at which that was admitted.

If it is the case that the IFRS encourage banks to overstate their capital positions to such an extreme degree, I am not in the least convinced that we are selling something that we truly understand. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) was opening the debate, on which I congratulate her, Gordon Kerr texted me to say that if we broke up the bank into 130 pieces, it would reveal its insolvency. I am not asserting the insolvency of RBS; what I am saying is that with the IFRS the way they are, we simply cannot know whether RBS is in the position it appears to be in.

In such circumstances, the paying of dividends, which has been proposed, would be extremely unwise. It would risk exposing taxpayers to future claims from stakeholders ranking superior to those common stakeholders. The claim will be that their entitlements have been improperly paid out as dividends, when those funds should lawfully have been held back and attributed to creditors and depositors. Tim Bush of Pensions & Investment Research Consultants, Gordon Kerr and others argue that we should have strong reservations about the integrity of the numbers and the ability of the firm to distribute profits under the law.

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman is painting an interesting picture of the deficiencies of the IFRS. If we believe it for a second, does it not behove the Government to do a proper analysis of the true value of Royal Bank of Scotland, given that we own over 70% of it?

[Mr Baker]

I banged on in the last Parliament about the IFRS and their shortcomings. Indeed, I introduced a Bill to require parallel accounts to use the UK generally accepted accounting principles, precisely because I think there is a serious problem. I refer the House to Gordon Kerr’s book “The Law of Opposites”, published by the Adam Smith Institute, which not only covers this problem in detail, but explains how it feeds into the problem of derivatives being used specifically to manufacture capital out of thin air to circumvent regulatory capital rules. That is an extremely serious problem that might mean that the entire banking system is in a far worse place than we might otherwise think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I should declare that I am an ex-banker but one reformed, once described as a humble crofter on the Isle of Skye.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

Never humble!

[Ian Blackford]

I thank my hon. Friend.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) for securing this important debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) who provided the House with great detail about how he views the financial issues surrounding the Royal Bank of Scotland.

We keep hearing from the Government about their long-term economic plan, but to have any kind of effective economic plan we need a dynamic banking sector that is fit for purpose and engages in appropriate and responsible consumer and business lending. It is therefore important that we pay cognisance to what is happening to the money supply, and in particular the definition of broad money or M4.

Figures released by the Bank of England for the year to end September 2015 are a cause of some concern. Money supply fell by 0.6%, although I concede that that was largely a result of a fall in wholesale deposits. Worryingly, however, lending fell by 0.1%. There is concern that availability to bank lending for businesses and consumers is running below the rate that can be considered sustainable, and certainly below the level that is consistent with the delivery of sustainable economic growth.

There is also a legitimate debate about what kind of lending we should have, and about interaction with savers—many speakers have already raised that point. We must encourage industrial and commercial investment that focuses on innovation and skills, driving up wages and living standards, and we must have less focus on consumer debt. In Scotland, Scottish Enterprise has a limited but successful investment bank, and we must consider how to support and grow that model elsewhere in the UK.

[Jeremy Quin]

rose—

[Ian Blackford]

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful to be called an hon. Friend by the hon. Gentleman. I accept his point about the types of lending taking place. Does he share my concern that in making many banking decisions, bankers enjoy having an asset that they can grab hold of—a house, perhaps, or something that they can see, touch and feel? We are considering cash-flow projections. Perhaps this issue comes down to the heart of training inside banks, because to be comfortable with some of the new technologies and innovations, they must be able to understand those cash-flow projections exactly.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I could probably bang on about that issue for a considerable time. He is right. Banks that are lending, particularly to the business community, must understand the businesses to which they are lending. Too often that has been done by matrix, spreadsheets and ticking boxes, and not through a clear understanding of where the growth opportunities are in the economy. That must change, which is why I referred to the investment bank in Scottish Enterprise. We need sectoral skills and an understanding of where growth opportunities are in the economy. There must be more of an alignment of the interests of the country, the Government and the banks, and an appreciation of what we need to do to deliver long-term and sustainable growth.

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the investment bank in Scottish Enterprise. Wales has a similar institution, Finance Wales, which is operated by the Welsh Government. It charges penal rates of interest. Will the hon. Gentleman mention the rates of interest charged by the similar organisation in Scotland?

[Ian Blackford]

I confess that I am not aware of the individual rates charged, but the investment bank in Scottish Enterprise is quite constrained by its access to capital. I hate to make this point, but if the Scottish Parliament had more powers, it would increase our ability to ensure that that investment bank was properly funded.

We all understand the importance of improving capital ratios and establishing a more sustainable banking platform, but at the same time there has been a choking-off of credit to businesses and consumers, restraining our ability to grow our economy. The need for quantitative easing was clear, but it is right to ask how wider society has benefited from the Bank of England’s £375 billion asset purchase scheme.

Quantitative easing demonstrably helped the banks, but it has not fed through to greater activity to help the wider economy. If we contrast that with the pre-financial crash period between 2006-8, we see that M4 was increasing at an annual rate of close to 15%—levels that should have made alarm bells ring in the Government and the regulator at that time. Today we are living with the consequences of that failure, and that is why we are having this debate. The issue of banks being too big to fail, and the dislocation that took place in our economy as a result of the financial crisis, meant that the public were, rightly, angry at the behaviour of those responsible. We cannot and must not return to the circumstances that led to that crisis.

Of course, none of this was unprecedented. There was a significant banking crisis in the UK in the 1870s. It took a long time to recover from that crisis, and at the time it led to substantial change. In the US the Glass-Steagall Act was introduced in 1933. It prohibited commercial banks from participating in investment banking after the excesses of the 1920s, and that legislation remained in place until repeal under President Clinton. The Glass-Steagall Act was introduced for good reasons, and in my opinion its repeal added to the toxic cocktail that led to the financial crisis of 2007-08. In that context it is right to debate the relationship between commercial and investment banking, although we seem to have settled on ring-fencing as a solution to the challenges.

I understand why many people have supported ring-fencing, and perhaps it is worthy of ongoing debate. We know, however, that investment banking was not the only source of the financial exuberance that brought our economy to its knees. It is worth remembering that Northern Rock was the first failure in this country. That bank had absolutely no exposure to investment banking, and, as was the case elsewhere, simple bad practice—or indeed malpractice—was the issue. We must ask whether it is necessary or appropriate for our commercial banks, such as Royal Bank of Scotland, to engage in investment banking. There is no question but that we need a thriving investment banking industry in this country, and it remains today a source of jobs and wealth. The critical question, however, is whether such practices are appropriate for our high-street banks.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Overend and Gurney banking crisis of the 1870s and—this follows on from the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—I believe it was only because of that crisis that banks had to report their accounts at all. Before that, such disclosure was regarded as rather a bad thing for a bank to do, because people might not trust it if it had to state exactly what its assets were.

On the investment banking arm of the Royal Bank of Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman think it appropriate for a commercial bank to provide investment banking capabilities to its corporate clients? There are many legitimate things about investment banking, such as foreign exchange providing support for exports, and derivatives are not always a bad thing—there are things they can do to help the export industry. There may be a synergy there, and I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

[Ian Blackford]

I appreciate that there is an issue regarding what can be defined as investment banking. Of course corporate banking clients at RBS would require some of those facilities, but it is a question of how it is done.

On 13 October the headline on the BBC was “Will Barclays make another push into Casino banking?” That is the real issue. We can debate and discuss the frailties that still exist in the Royal Bank of Scotland, and what it needs to do to improve its balance sheet, but when banks are in a better position than they are today and have strengthened balance sheets, what would prevent the likes of RBS—even in a ring-fenced scenario—from putting additional capital into investment banking? That is the problem. Over the past two or three decades the seductive charms of investment banking have led to investment banks going down that road. We must be careful about that and debate the best way we in Parliament can ensure effective regulation. It never worked. It was a fantasy. Sad to say, it could become a fantasy for many more in the years to come. We do not need our high-street banks to become casino banks, and if necessary we will need legislation to enforce that. Lessons must be learned. No more can the country be held to ransom.

I am conscious that others wish to speak, so in the short time I have left let me turn specifically to RBS. I want to see RBS back in private hands, but not at any price. As the motion sets out, there ought to be a wider review of the UK financial sector. We own RBS collectively and we have a duty of stewardship to make sure that it is fit for purpose for the decades to come. There needs to be a debate on this before the Treasury and UKFI unwind our position. We have a duty, having bailed RBS out, to get the best value for the taxpayer. I am delighted to support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the comments from hon. Members congratulating the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on securing the debate. The advantage of having this debate is that we have moved the agenda forward, rather than looking back. Yes, we have castigated and held RBS to account, but the Minister should also note that Members on both sides of the House want to move the banking agenda forward.

We have spent seven or eight years, in the Treasury Committee and in the House, trying to refashion the regulatory machinery. In fact, the new regulatory machinery is yet to come into force, because it will be another two years before most of Vickers and the ring-fencing is in force, and another four years before it is fully operational. That means that we will have spent more than a decade trying to sort out the problems of 2007, and when we get there, we will discover that economic and banking problems have moved forward. Therefore, the advantage of today’s debate is that we have tried to start moving the agenda beyond 2007. I think that the Government should bear that in mind. That is why the motion, despite being drafted in very general terms, expresses the will of the House, which is that we need to look forward at how we can make the banking system more responsive, rather than simply protecting it from replicating the previous bubble.

I associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan). In criticising the strategy pursued by various managements of RBS, which hopefully was largely in the past, we should never extend the criticism to the work done by the ordinary workers in the branches and call centres. They have struggled to cope with the crisis of 2007-08, and with the various restructurings that have taken place. I remind Members that employment in RBS was around 200,000 when it was taken into public ownership, and now it is about 92,000, so there has been a massive shedding of labour.

[Ian Blackford]

It is interesting that my hon. Friend is referring to the challenges that some of the staff at Royal Bank of Scotland have faced. They are fully deserving of our support. Does he agree that we should reflect on the employees of RBS and other banks who were encouraged by their managements to own shares pre-the crisis, and who, among others, have suffered parlously from the mistakes by those managements?

[George Kerevan]

My hon. Friend, and old friend, makes a very good point. There is not a wall between the customer and the rank and file staff of RBS; they too are customers and shareholders, and they too suffered.

That brings me to where we go next. I do not think that Members of this House would stand in the way of returning RBS to private ownership. When the Minister replies, she must not define our difference of opinion as being that the Government support a return to private ownership while the rest of us are demanding that RBS stay in the public sector. That is not the issue. The issue is the emphasis placed by the Treasury and the various Treasury agents in their approach to the various generations of management in RBS. In public ownership, the key goal given to RBS management was to pay down the level of debt—to reduce the balance sheet. During that period, RBS reduced its balance sheet by some £1.3 trillion. To put that in numbers that people can understand, it is equivalent to the entire balance sheet of Lloyds plus the entire balance sheet of Standard Chartered.

Achieving that has required the management of RBS to focus only on internal issues. Of all the weaknesses that have been identified by Members—I agree with all of them—the central weakness is that the management has concentrated on RBS’s problems and not on the customer. I will explain how I would crystallise this debate for the Minister. In choosing when and how to send RBS back to private ownership, the test must not be, “Did we get all our money back? Is the Treasury satisfied? Has the balance sheet been paid down to a certain amount?”; it must be the impact on the customer and whether RBS has returned to a customer-led focus. I think that the current chief executive, Ross McEwan, and his staff are struggling to do that. Since the senior management was changed two years ago, there has been some refocusing. I remind the Minister that the proximate reason for the change in chief executive was that the then chief executive had disagreed with the pressure that he was being put under to get the bank ready for full privatisation when he was saying, “No, we need to restructure in favour of getting the bank ready to meet the needs of the customer.” The test is not about ideological machismo—are we in favour of private ownership or public ownership?—but the fact that the bank can be privatised and move forward only when it is capable of winning back its customers and its customers’ confidence.

The fundamental break with RBS’s customers has been the loss of faith of its small business customers. That has not changed; we have heard a number of examples today. Whether or not RBS was ultimately culpable, through the global restructuring group, in driving viable businesses to the wall, that is what RBS’s customers feel happened. Until that is resolved, the bank will never become the bank that we all want that can drive the economy forward.

The Government have to be very careful about how they approach privatisation in case they further break the confidence of small businesses. In August, when there was the first wave of privatisation in which the Government started to sell off their shares, that produced bad headlines yet again. I personally think there was evidence of short selling. The Treasury certainly lost more money than it needed to in trying to sell off 5% of shares. That brought further bad headlines, which cannot be allowed to happen again.

At this stage in the game, after seven to eight years of constant restructuring at RBS, it will not be easy to start again and ask RBS management and staff to have a whole new business model. We might come to that point, but I give a word of caution. If we look at the long and sorry history of the attempt to hive off Williams & Glyn, which is a disaster still waiting to happen, we will see that it is not possible simply to wave a magic wand and break up RBS into a dozen or so regional banks. I believe we need to create regional and stakeholder banks, but breaking up RBS may be more difficult than some Members imagine.

Williams & Glyn was not a standalone bank—it was a brand that was totally integrated into RBS. Hiving it off again has taken so long that the original investor, Santander, walked away. The RBS management has been forced to enter into a bizarre arrangement with Corsair Capital, which is an interesting name for the partner RBS has joined in order to bring in capital to Williams & Glyn and then float it off. I do not think that RBS will make any money when it is floated off, so the taxpayer and the Treasury will not get any more money back. Corsair Capital is an American group with a long history of consolidation in the banking world, so I do not think it will be very long before Williams & Glyn is bought by somebody else, precisely so that the Corsair group makes a return on its money and effort. In the end, therefore, we will be no further forward when it comes to small businesses.

I am being chided by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will be brief in offering some practical suggestions.

[Ian Blackford]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Kerevan]

I will not take another intervention, because I am mindful of the time.

The Government have to rethink the idea of extending the new bank surcharge, which they have applied to the larger banks, to the smaller banks and mutuals. If we want to strengthen the mutual stakeholder section, we need to reduce the bank surcharge on it.

There is a growing issue—we have not mentioned this today, but it is beginning to emerge in the banking community—of access to the interlink payment system that binds together all the banks. The electronic system, which relates to cashline machines, standing order payments and contactless payments in a shop, is commonly owned by the big banks, but it is very difficult for smaller banks, new challenger banks and, ultimately, stakeholder banks to access it. We need to open it up. Finally, we need to open up the pricing structure so that SMEs can see how much it costs them to run accounts with a bank

Members on both sides of the House have collectively offered suggestions to the Government. There should be no rush to judgment. Let us think about what we are doing. RBS must have a customer-led focus and we should not just look at what the Treasury wants to do in order to get its money back.

Tax Credits

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I remind Government Members that £375 billion of our debt was the result of quantitative easing? The Bank of England has had to step in and use monetary policy measures because of the failure of the Government’s fiscal measures.

[Neil Parish]

I will not get into an argument with the hon. Gentleman about quantitative easing, although I rather fear we would not have the employment we have today had we not used some of those tools. Whether they were overused is a matter for debate—I suspect in the history books—but I suggest that QE helped with employment, and that we have got the economy running smoothly and in the right direction.

I make the same plea that I am sure hon. Members from across the Chamber will make. I ask the Chancellor please to consider how we might mitigate the impact of these changes and raise the national living wage so that people are earning more as tax credits are taken away. People will accept that. It is not a crime to be low paid. We have got to put this right, because the Conservative party and the Government’s reputation is at stake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on how the Chancellor’s forecast for budget and debt reduction worked out in the last Parliament?

[Kevin Foster]

We have an economy moving forward, and we have increased health spending, unlike in Scotland. According to last Thursday’s Daily Record—one of my favourite reads over porridge, obviously—our failing NHS is the SNP’s fault. I am happy to get talking about politics any day of the week.

Returning to the key issue—[Interruption.] It is always lovely to have an accompaniment from these Benches. The key part for me is not the e-mails I have received or the stuff in the media; it is thinking about the thousands of families I now represent in this Chamber who are like the family I came from. Whatever we may think of the destination of this policy area, we should ensure that the journey we travel to get to it does not impact unduly on people who are trying to do their best in life.

I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, but it is important to have alternatives that do not make things worse or create the wrong incentives. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) made a point about what the Library figures mean for the right hon. Gentleman’s initial proposals. However, if that model were adopted, there would be an effective taxation rate of nearly 100%—higher than virtually anyone at the highest levels of income is paying anywhere in the world, so it would be strange to have such a system applying in this country to those earning just under £20,000. I can appreciate the sentiment of those proposals, but at that sort of level it would provide a clear disincentive to work, just as tax rates of 88% or 98% were back in the 1970s.

I look forward to seeing what the Government will bring forward, and I look forward to continuing engagement with Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), the Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, who I see in his place, for the engagement so far. It is right that we should not oppose without offering up alternatives. I hope that there will be clear engagement with Members and Parliament about what things can be done to mitigate the impact within the envelope of an affordable and deliverable financial settlement that allows us to achieve our overall fiscal goals, which were so strongly endorsed in the UK general election not very long ago.

It has been a pleasure to sit through and speak in this debate, and it will be even more of a pleasure to welcome the Government’s proposals that will come forward in the near future to mitigate the impacts on the lowest paid, as is called for by the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I am delighted that we again have an opportunity to try to hold the Government to account. I thank all the speakers who have argued that the Government should change course. In particular, I pay tribute to Conservative Members who have said many wise words, but those wise words will be acceptable only if the Government listen and change tack.

Why are we discussing tax credits again? Frankly, the Government have got themselves into a mess and they need to find a way out of it. The proposals agreed in the statutory instrument and now rejected in the other place are wrongheaded and punish those who are hard-working. We all agree that work must pay, but we do not make work pay by taking money from those in work who rely on tax credits to achieve a modest standard of living.

There is no economic, or indeed moral or ethical, rationale for ripping £4.4 billion out of the tax credits programme. Let us look at and examine the impact of the changes to tax credits. Perhaps I can start with a quote from the Adam Smith Institute, which used to be much loved by Conservative Members:

“Working tax credits are the best form of welfare we have, and cutting them would be a huge mistake. The government has long claimed to want to make work pay for everyone, but cutting tax credits would disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society.”

The average negative impact of the reduction in tax credits will amount to £1,300 in 2016-17, or £25 a week, off each family’s budget. In the period of Margaret Thatcher’s Government, there was the line that if it was not hurting, it was not working. This is going to hurt, and it will hurt millions of families throughout the country. Is that what we want? Is it right and is it fair? Let us have a real debate about improving living standards, but let us also recognise that we have to reverse the growing inequality in the UK. Driving sustainable economic growth and a fairer society will, as an end result, negate the need for tax credit cuts.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is making a very persuasive case. He is absolutely right that the cuts will negatively impact some of the poorest families. Does he agree that it will also disproportionately affect black and minority ethnic communities?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman often speaks up, rightly, for those in BME communities, for which I thank him. He is absolutely right: those in disadvantaged communities will feel the brunt of the cuts—and not only them, but those in constituencies up and down the land. This must be stopped to protect people throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, regardless of where they come from.

We keep hearing that we cannot afford tax credits. This is bunkum. The reverse is true: we cannot afford to impact families in the way these measures will. We all want to reduce the deficit and the national debt. We need to drive sustainable economic growth in order to drive up tax receipts and improve our financial position. We cannot do that by taking £4.4 billion out of the economy.

It is the failure to deliver sustainable economic growth that constrains our ability to reduce the deficit and the debt. If the Government’s fiscal policy had been working, the Bank of England would not have intervened to the extent it has had to during the past few years by establishing an asset purchase programme—so called quantitative easing—to the tune of £375 billion. When we talk about our debt crisis and the need to reduce spending, we seem to airbrush away the fact that we owe £375 billion to ourselves—debt created by ourselves. SNP Members understand that quantitative easing was necessary. I might add that the financial markets have benefited massively from this injection of liquidity. The FTSE 100 index was at 3,700 in March 2009 when the programme started; today it is at 6,370—a gain of 73% over six and a half years. The Bank of England has acknowledged that those with financial assets have benefited enormously from the quantitative easing programme over the course of the past six years, and 40% of the benefits of higher asset prices have gone to the top 5% in society. Do not talk to us about all of us being in this together.

This is important because the outcome—I am being charitable in using that word—of fiscal and economic policy has been to enhance inequality, and today we are being told that the poor, particularly the working poor, must pay the price of the Government’s desire to balance the books. That is unfair and it is wrong.

In yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said:

“printing money, hiking up taxes—we see that it is working people like Karen who would pay the price.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 340.]

I gently point out to the Prime Minister that it is his Government who, through quantitative easing, have in effect been printing money and that the tax credit cuts are in reality a tax increase for Karen and millions of others.

The point is that this is about political choice. Those who have benefited enormously from the quantitative easing programme are now getting an additional bonus for the changes to inheritance tax. The poor are getting their income cut. Where is the social justice in that? Where is the social cohesion that we should be striving to deliver going to come from?

In the spirit of co-operation, let me help the Government.

[Mr MacNeil]

They need it!

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed they do. The Public Accounts Committee report on fraud and error stocktake, which was published yesterday, states:

“High levels of benefits and tax credits fraud and error remain unacceptable. Overpayments cost every household in the UK around £200 a year and waste money that government could spend on other things…Since 2010 both departments”—

the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—

“have made progress in reducing headline rates of fraud and error, particularly HMRC in tax credits. However, in 2013–14, DWP and HMRC still overpaid claimants by £4.6 billion because of fraud and error”.

The fact that in 2016-17 the Government are expected to save £4.4 billion from tax credit changes just goes to show that if the DWP and HMRC were not making errors in overpayments, that money could be used to protect those low-income families who are reliant on tax credits, if the proposals were reversed.

I say to the Chancellor and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench: cut out the mistakes and fraud inflicted on HMRC and you will achieve the savings. Do not go after the poor. Eliminate fraud and mistakes and it’s job done.

The Government’s economic policies have created inequality, and the coup de grâce is that the poor are having to pay again. Before Christmas, letters will be delivered to our constituents who receive tax credits, informing them of the cuts they will experience from next April.

[Mr MacNeil]

Scrooge Osborne!

[Ian Blackford]

As my hon. Friend says, happy Christmas from Ebenezer Osborne!

We will all be faced with constituents writing to us and coming to our surgeries in despair about how they are going to make ends meet.

Let me turn briefly to the proposals of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). I commend him for seeking a way out of the difficulties the Government face. His alternative tax credits plan would involve introducing a secondary earnings threshold, which would be paid for by a steeper withdrawal rate for those earning above the new minimum rate. We do not agree, however, that only those earning less than £13,000 should be protected from the cuts. Everyone in receipt of tax credits ought to be protected.

It is admirable that, under the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals, those earning very modest amounts would be protected, but those on modest means would still be hit. For example, a family with two children and gross earnings of £20,000 would still lose £1,656. Simply put, that is not acceptable. The tax credit cuts in their entirety should be stopped. They must be reversed, and reversed in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

None of the third-party analyses takes into account all the different changes and elements of support that are coming in. Of course, depending on exactly how many earners there are in the family, the age of the children and so forth, any proposals will impact differently. My point, as discussed in the debate, is that the Government are in listening mode and the Chancellor has said that he will come back and say more at the autumn statement.

The question of childcare came up more than once, including in the summing up of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles. A review is taking place on the cost reimbursement for childcare providers, and it is important that the model is sustainable.

Questions about the devolved Administrations were raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and, indirectly, by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). The 30-hour offer is an England offer, but there are Barnett consequentials—I hope I have the terminology right—that go with it, and it is up to the devolved Administrations to proceed in the way they think right. I am happy to be corrected by SNP Members, but I believe that the Scottish Government have committed to bringing forward 30 hours from 2020. I wonder whether they might think about doing that sooner.

Further questions were raised, although they were batted away quite effectively at the time, about the ability of the Scottish Government to pursue their own course on overall tax and benefits. Let me make it clear that from as early as 2017 the Scottish Government will be able to set rates and bands for income tax on earnings. That is clear in the Scotland Bill, which is also very clear that the Scottish Government can top up benefits and make discretionary payments to claimants. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions cannot reasonably withhold consent for that.

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I look forward to giving way to the hon. Gentleman, so that he can confirm the Scottish Government’s intentions on that.

[Ian Blackford]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious with his time. We have demonstrated that the Scottish Government have mitigated some of the worst effects of the welfare cuts over the last few years, with £100 million invested to offset the impact of the bedroom tax. We want to protect the people of Scotland, but we need the powers to be able to do so. That means we need full powers over our economy, over taxation and over social security. Give us the tools, and we will protect the people of Scotland that Westminster is letting down.

[Damian Hinds]

SNP Members have managed to use that line for quite some time. I am not sure how much longer it will be credible to continue to use it, given the powers that are coming to them.

The reforms to the tax credit system have been discussed a number of times and voted on by the whole House on five occasions. The case for change is clear—not merely on fiscal grounds, but because a labour market dependent on a high level of welfare is not the way to deliver the stability and independence that working people deserve.

We acknowledge, of course, the concerns expressed in recent weeks. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said we would listen—and that is precisely what we intend to do. He believes and I believe that we can achieve the same goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money we need to save to secure our economy while at the same time helping in the transition. That is what my right hon. Friend will set out in the autumn statement.

We are determined to deliver the lower welfare, higher wage economy that we were elected to deliver, that the British people want to see and that working Britain deserves.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to the amendments in this group tabled by the Scottish National party. We also support new clause 1, which the shadow Minister moved earlier. Let me pay tribute at this stage to the efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) who worked so assiduously on the Bill Committee on behalf of the SNP, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for her work on these matters in the Work and Pensions Committee.

My wife has always suggested to me that it provides context and depth to a speech if it includes a quote early on. On this occasion, and in relation to tax credit cuts, I have a quote that was timeously delivered in the past few days:

“It’s not acceptable. The aim is sound, but we can’t have people suffering on the way… The idea that there’s a cliff edge in April before the uptake in wages comes in is a real practical human problem and the Government needs to look again at it again”.

Who is that quote attributed to? That was said by Ruth Davidson MSP, leader of the Conservative party in Scotland, as she called on this Government to have some movement on the issue by the autumn statement.

After last night’s vote in the other place, it is time for the Government to rethink these outrageous proposals. They have managed to unite a considerable swathe of political and civic society against the plans. In fact, after last night the Chancellor really stands alone in continuing to push for the cuts. If the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and this Government will not listen to Opposition Members, if they will not listen to charitable and third sector organisations, and if they will not listen to anyone else, surely they should listen to the leader of their own party in Scotland.

The SNP is completely opposed to the UK Government’s continued attack on low-income families, and we support Labour’s amendment to repeal the regulations, which will affect 350,000 children in 200,000 families in Scotland. Let me say this loud and clear: the SNP will oppose these ideological, regressive and utterly punitive tax credit cuts with every opportunity open to us today and every day, because we realise the damage they will cause to working family incomes, to levels of poverty across these isles, including child poverty, and to social cohesion in every community in the United Kingdom.

The amendments that my colleagues and I support in this group would bring about the repeal of these tax credit regulations and overturn the proposed cuts. However, should the Government decide to press on with the cuts in the face of hostility across this Chamber, and from Conservatives up the road, they must consider forms of mitigation. They must act to protect vulnerable families with a delay and a fully implemented transitional period, as is covered in our new clause 8, which we will be pushing to a vote. In the light of last night’s vote in the other place, I expect that is already being considered by the Government.

New clause 8 would mean that the measures in the Bill and in the 2015 tax credits regulations relating to the award of tax credits and the relevant entitlement within universal credit would not take effect until the Secretary of State had implemented a scheme for full transitional protection for a minimum of three years for all families and individuals currently receiving tax credits before 5 April 2016, and such transitional protection should be renewable after three years with parliamentary approval.

The transitional arrangements are important, as none are put in place by the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. This means that the tax credit cuts will be implemented immediately in April 2016. In fact, tax credit recipients will apparently be getting an unwelcome letter detailing the cuts to their award just weeks before Christmas. This will give working families no time to plan effectively for an average cut of £1,300. For families living wage packet to wage packet, utterly dependent on tax credits to keep them above the breadline, the cut will be devastating and impossible to plan for in such a short time.

Amendments 49, 50 and 52 would ensure that relevant benefits, child benefit and tax credits increased in line with the consumer prices index. Amendment 51 is consequential, while amendments 53 and 54 would ensure that the current child tax credit arrangements remained in place. Amendment 55 would remove changes to the entitlement to the child element of universal credit. These amendments were pushed by my colleagues in Committee. The Government did not accept any of them, but they pledged to come back with more information, which has not yet materialised.

Why on earth have the Government decided to rush the Bill from Committee, which only finished on Thursday, to this final stage today? If they are serious about introducing more detail and explaining the expected mitigation measures, why not flesh that out? The rush suggests that the cuts are purely about making savings and therefore ideologically driven. The changes are fundamentally regressive. They disproportionately target those in low-income households and punish them for the Government’s ideological obsession with austerity—an obsession that is failing socially and economically.

The SNP stood on a manifesto that was fundamentally anti-austerity but which also plotted a more responsible path to reducing the deficit. We have argued for a 0.5% increase in departmental spending per year for this Parliament, which would have released £140 billion to invest in capital projects to boost growth and narrow income inequalities. Our plan would also have resulted in a budget deficit of just 2% by the end of the Parliament, and it was backed by an International Monetary Fund report in June that highlighted how reducing income inequality not only reduced poverty but boosted growth. By extension, the policy of cutting tax credits and thereby increasing income inequality will drive more of our citizens into poverty and harm growth and therefore harm the Government’s apparent aim of reducing the deficit. So, as well as being socially destructive, this policy is—to extend the IMF’s thinking—economically incompetent.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP has come up with a responsible approach to delivering sustainable growth that will drive up wages and employment, by contrast with what the Government have done over the past five years and what we see going forward? The Bank of England, with its £375 billion of quantitative easing, has had to bail them out with monetary policy because, quite simply, they have not delivered on fiscal policy.

[Neil Gray]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. As we are talking about affordability and sustainability, let me say that the Government think it feasible to press ahead with apparently £167 billion of Trident nuclear weapons, which is shocking and deplorable, while seeing fit to find £4.4 billion of cuts in tax credits. They are taking an ideological wrecking ball to our social security system in the name of a budget surplus by scandalously waging a war on low-income households.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

This is precisely the point that I would like to get on to. Despite the increased expenditure on tax credits, we continue to see these dreadful statistics on poverty, and that is because this is a flawed model that is based on taxing people on the minimum wage who can barely afford to pay tax, recycling that revenue through the welfare system and using it to top up low pay. That is not a sensible way to proceed.

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Oliver Dowden]

I will give way once more, but I am aware of Madam Deputy Speaker’s injunction.

[Ian Blackford]

We understand, from survey after survey, that millions of people in this country are going to be worse off as a result of these measures. What is the hon. Gentleman going to say to his constituents who come to him after next April having lost on average £1,300 of their income?

[Oliver Dowden]

I would say to those people that this Government have a clear and coherent plan for helping people on the lowest incomes that consists of three elements. The first is to increase the amount of money people can earn without paying any tax; by the end of this Parliament that will be increased to £12,500. That is lifting people working 35 hours a week on the minimum wage out of tax entirely. Secondly, we are introducing a national living wage which by the end of this Parliament will increase wages to £9 an hour. Thirdly, we are introducing a number of other measures such as free childcare which will help those in most need of it. That is a far better model—to move from a low-wage economy with high tax and high welfare to a higher wage, lower welfare and lower tax model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans]

This is a very important debate. In the last Parliament I had the privilege of sitting on the Work and Pensions Committee, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). I am sorry to hear about how his family have been affected by Duchenne muscular dystrophy. A member of my family suffered with that condition and died aged 21 after many years of suffering. It is a dreadful disease, but this Government’s reforms are not about inflicting anything on people with diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Reforming welfare is crucial to achieving a sustainable welfare system that is fair to the most vulnerable in society and also to the hard-working taxpayers who pay for it. Without sound public finances, there can be no economic security for working families, and the country cannot pay for the hospitals and schools that we rely on. Those who suffer most when Governments run unsustainable deficits are not the richest, but the very poorest.

[Ian Blackford]

We have heard much from Government Members about sustainable welfare spending, but how would they define it? Is not the heart of the problem the fact that through the things they are doing, the Government are pushing many children into poverty and redefining poverty? Is it not the case that when we change the definition, we change the truth?

[Graham Evans]

I think I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. This is about choices and what we spend our money on. There is no such thing as a magic money tree, and if Scottish nationalists are not happy with these measures, perhaps they will inform the Scottish people how much they will pay in tax—we never hear that from the SNP. If they do not agree with welfare reform, they should tell the House and the people of Scotland how much they will put up taxes.

The Bill continues on from the Welfare Reform Act 2012, restoring the ethos that it always pays to work to the heart of the British welfare system. The 2012 Act set in place a benefit cap.

Tax Credits

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate tax credits today, particularly in light of the wholly inadequate time we had to debate tax credit changes on 15 September in connection with the statutory instrument. Would it not have been better if the proposed changes were made part of the Finance Bill so that they could have been properly scrutinised and debated and so that many Conservative MPs would not have been made deeply unhappy about what their Government have done?

During the week of the tax credit debate, a damning report from the House of Commons Library was published on the effect on many people of the changes consequential on these proposals. Let me state that the Scottish National party wholly opposes the changes to tax credits, which are nothing less than an attack on low-income families in this country.

The Prime Minister told his party conference that he wants a “war on poverty”. I would tell the Government that actions speak louder than conference rhetoric when cutting tax credits is going to increase poverty, particularly child poverty. The reality is that this is not a war on poverty, it is a war against the poor. All of us came into politics to make a difference. I say to the Government and to all Conservative Members that they should examine their consciences. Do they want to push through these cuts that will damage millions of families, increasing inequality in this country?

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is now the policy of the SNP to use the new tax-raising powers shortly to be introduced to increase income tax in Scotland in a year or two’s time to increase tax credits in Scotland?

[Ian Blackford]

I find that extraordinary. We fought in the general election on delivering home rule to Scotland, which meant full fiscal autonomy. Given the damage that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservatives are going to do to hundreds of thousands of families in Scotland, they should give us the power over our economy and over welfare so that we can protect people in Scotland from the damage they are going to do.

We hear that individual Tory MPs have been summoned to speak to the Prime Minister and Chancellor to be straightened out. I appeal to them not to be bought off. They should do the right thing and support today’s motion. This is a Government who cut inheritance tax for those wealthy enough to have £1 million-plus properties and punish those on low incomes. “All in this together”?—well, we can reflect on that line.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the Government have also refused to close what is called “the Mayfair loophole”, allowing more than 8,000 people earning more than £1 million a year to pay only 28% tax, while hammering the poor?

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have seen growing inequality over the course of the last few years, and the Budget will only increase it.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Let me make a little progress, and then I will.

Let us look at the facts of the matter. In Scotland, more than 500,000 children are in families that rely on tax credits, 350,000 of which are from the more than 200,000 low-income families who will be hit by these changes. If we take the UK as a whole, the Library tells us that 3.3 million in-work families received tax credits in April 2015, of whom 2.7 million had children. The Library tells us that the average negative impact in the reduction of the tax credit award in 2016-17 will be £1,300. As the Library puts it, the changes to tax credits will deliver savings of £4.4 billion in 2016-17. Of course, that is one way to put it; in reality, it is £4.4 billion that will be taken out of the pockets of the poor and the majority of working families, and £4.4 billion-worth of spending that will be taken out of local economies.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

Do not people in lower income groups tend, in general terms, to spend money in their local communities, and will the cuts not therefore remove potential investment and growth from those communities?

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed, and I shall be saying more about that a little later. You do not fix the deficit by taking spending out of the economy. The point is that those hard-working families who receive tax credits tend to spend every penny that they get, injecting money into the local economy, paying tax, and so on.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to inequality. Does he accept that these cuts will disproportionately affect the BME communities, thus increasing racial inequality?

[Ian Blackford]

That, too, is a very reasonable point. I think that what the Government are doing will pose real dangers to the cohesion of society.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will make a little progress, but then I will happily give way again.

The House of Commons document also states:

“There is no transitional protection for existing families on tax credits.”

Let us just dwell on that statement. The harsh winds of a winter chill are brought to you by Her Majesty’s Government—or, as we might put it, Ebenezer Cameron. I do not believe that any of us came into this place to put our hands on our hearts and say that we want to do this to hard-working families. We have it in our power to stop it today. Just imagine the letters dropping through constituents’ letter boxes, telling them about the massive cuts that are about to afflict them, and for what purpose! We must pause, reflect, and change course. Today is the opportunity that the House needs to recognise that we have got this one wrong. We need to be brave, be bold, and collectively do the right thing.

Let us stop and think about this for a minute. Low-income families, on average, will lose £1,300 a year. Let us now look more specifically at a single-earner couple with two children, working a 35-hour week on the minimum wage. That couple will see their tax credit award fall by £1,853 in 2016-17. The impact of the so-called national living wage will only modestly offset the impact of a fall in tax credit income, and the net family income will fall by £1,525.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the parties represented on his side of the House have made a series of apocalyptic predictions about the British economy since the 2010 general election, and that, one after another, those apocalyptic predictions have been proved wrong? Why should we believe your predictions now?

[Ian Blackford]

We are not making any apocalyptic predictions about the economy. What we are talking about is the impact on hard-working families. We want to see investment in our economy. We want to see investment in innovation and skills, improving productivity and improving the living standards of all, in Scotland and elsewhere. We want to work with you so that we can improve those things.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way in a second, but I want to make a little bit of progress.

Let me pose this question to Conservative Members. What will you say next year to constituents, hard-working, decent folk, many of whom will have voted for you, and who have just seen their incomes cut by more than £1,000? Are you going to tell them that their hard work is paying dividends—that for them, work is paying? You do not have an answer, because there isn’t one. The policy is wrong, and you have the opportunity to change it: to do the right thing for the country, and to do the right thing for hard-working families in your constituencies.

[Andrew Percy]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he is making many points with which I agree. I know that he is keen to be honest with the House, but will he be clear about one thing? Tonight’s vote will not overturn the changes in tax credits, although a vote in the other place may do so at some point in the future. Today’s debate is a good opportunity for us to express our concerns, but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to lead anyone who is watching it to believe that the vote will be on tax credits. Even if the motion is passed, it will make no difference. Will the hon. Gentleman be clear about that, please?

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber responds to that intervention, I must tell him that he has been talking quite a lot about “you”. I am sure that he does not mean the Chair. Perhaps it would work rather better if he addressed the Minister.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you very much for those wise words, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) that what the House has today is an opportunity to send a message to the Government that they ought to reflect on what has been proposed. I think that they have made an honest mistake. I hope that it is an honest mistake, that we can reflect on it, and that we will not punish people in the way that the tax credit changes will do.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I want to make some more progress, because I know that many other Members want to speak.

I mentioned that constituents would be coming to you, and asked what answer you would give them. I think that what we must do is the right thing: the right thing for hard-working families in all our constituencies.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Blackford]

I am going to make some progress.

Every Member of Parliament should look up the online House of Commons paper, which contains a link to the number of tax credit recipients by constituency. Any Members who support the Government’s proposals can see exactly how many of their constituents will be affected by them. We remember Mrs Thatcher saying, back in the day, that there was no alternative. That, of course, was nonsense. We also heard that there was no such thing as society. That sort of behaviour should be a thing of the past. There has to be social cohesion. We have to demonstrate that we want to help people out of poverty, not remove a ladder that would take them out of it.

I know what people in my constituency are saying. They do not like this. It is seen as mean-spirited. It is punishing the poor: ordinary, hard-working folk. There is no excuse for it, and we can stop it. There will be a massive impact on families, and we know that the end result will push families with children into poverty. We hear—and we have heard it in the Chamber today—that many Tory Members have voiced concerns at the impact of the changes. We should say to the Government, “You need to listen to those of us on this side of the House, as well as some of your own voices that are reacting to the impact of what you are doing.”

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

You asked just now—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I remembered as soon as I had said it that I should not have said it. Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman asked just now what it was that we wanted in our constituencies. What we really want is a better future for everyone. We do not want people to be hard done by. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on this? We want more jobs, a better future, more money and better childcare, all of which the Minister has outlined today.

[Ian Blackford]

We all want a better future. We all want more jobs, and better-paid jobs. But the point is—the point that we cannot get away from—that you do not do that by punishing those who are in work, and who will be pushed into poverty. As the Government have often said, work must pay. You cannot do what you are doing and be consistent with your own objectives.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is of course indefensible for the Government to pick up the tab for employers who refuse to pay their staff decent wages, cutting the support from the working poor will not force wages up? A strong labour market will, as will rigorous enforcement of a genuine living wage and ending zero-hours contracts.

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. I hope that we will go on and have a robust debate about productivity in this country and about skills and innovation, because driving investment into the economy will drive wages up and negate the need for tax credits. None of us has a fundamental desire to see the long-term existence of tax credits, but they can only be removed when wages are driven up. What we cannot do is what the Government are doing and cut tax credits ahead of increases in wages.

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Blackford]

I am going to make some progress, because I am aware of the time.

One has to ask about the moral compass of a Government who want to increase the inheritance tax threshold while the poorest in our society are being squeezed to such an extent. One nation, they tell us, but whose nation is that? It is not a country in which we want to live. Perhaps from an economic point of view we need to ask where the logic is in this policy. We are told that it is about getting the deficit down, but taking cash out of the pockets of the poorest means taking cash out of the economy and depressing economic activity. Those on low incomes tend to spend what money they have. This provision does not fix the deficit; it takes spending—[Interruption.] That is patronising? I will tell Government Members who is being patronised, and that is poor people in this country.

Let us make it clear, as we did during the election in Scotland, that we want to get the deficit down but that this is not the way to do it—[Hon. Members: “How?”] Members ask how we will do that, and I am happy to give them an answer since they have given me the opportunity. I remind them that we won the election in Scotland, with 56 MPs returned for the SNP, and we had a progressive message that we delivered to the people of Scotland of investing in our country by increasing spending by a modest 0.5% per annum that would have delivered additional spending in the UK of £140 billion and would have reduced the deficit to 2% of national income by the end of the decade. That is a much more responsible way to deal with the future of our country.

There is a philosophical question of whether effective support through tax credits for employers paying low wages excuses those employers from paying a real living wage that offers dignity for work. I would argue that we all want to reach a situation in which work pays, to the extent that those in work have a decent standard of living. The SNP has been championing a real living wage as a response to dealing with poverty and that would mean that hard-working families would become financially sustainable, driving up tax revenues, reducing the deficit, enhancing economic activity and, ultimately, leading to an enhanced fiscal position. The desire to make work pay, which the SNP fully supports through the idea of the living wage—the real living wage, not the Tory construct—has to go hand in hand with an environment that encourages productivity, but we know that that has not happened for the past eight years, with productivity flatlining and even the OBR’s forecast for the next four years showing only limited recovery in productivity. We cannot have sustained growth in wages unless we have growth in productivity.

[Oliver Dowden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

No, I am going to make some progress.

We need a national debate about how we can strengthen and drive sustainable economic growth, driving up living standards and making work pay. We can only reach a high wage economy with investment in skills, innovation and business. That is not happening, and its absence is why we need the safety net of tax credits. That is why the Government must reconsider what they have voted through.

The Resolution Foundation has shown that the so-called living wage will boost wages by £4.5 billion by 2020, nowhere near the impact of the £13 billion of cuts to various working age benefits. It cannot be acceptable that working people pay such a price. We need to cut inequality, not drive it, which is what the Government are doing.

Let us come back to the example of the family losing £1,525 of their income next year. What will the Government say to such families when they are faced with difficult choices? Family budgets are already tight and something has to give.

[David T. C. Davies]

rose—

[Ian Blackford]

I will not give way just now.

Just imagine what will happen when someone living hand to mouth faces an unexpected problem. Perhaps over the winter the central heating boiler will need to be fixed or a fridge will need to be replaced. What will Members say to their constituents when they knock on the surgery door? Where is the compassionate Conservatism we used to talk about? When their voters have their income cut by more than £1,500, all those problems will mean difficult choices. That is why this issue needs re-examining. I am appealing to the Government to listen to the many voices raising legitimate concerns.

The Government talk about being a one nation Government, but if that is their desire they cannot square it with the rise in inequality that will be accelerated through these measures. We know that a report published by the Resolution Foundation on 7 October estimates that the tax and benefit changes will push a further 200,000 children into poverty in 2016. Is that really a price worth paying? We cannot accept that that can be right. This is not just a question of the 200,000 who will fall into poverty next year; the figure will increase to 600,000 by 2020.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman has talked four or five times about doing the right thing, but is it not important to recognise that that includes doing the right thing by the next generation, which stands to be saddled with billions of pounds of debt that cannot be paid back?

[Ian Blackford]

Of course we need to make sure we are doing the right thing for people today and for the next generation, but that comes back to what I explained to the House: the position the SNP had at the general election—a responsible position of investing today and for tomorrow, a responsible position of dealing with the deficit but investing in the future of the country.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem in making today’s children suffer in the short term is that child poverty has enormous long-term consequences?

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We must ensure that we deal effectively with child poverty in this country, but these measures will constrain that effort.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

On Friday a lady called Edith came to my surgery to complain about her daughter’s situation. She is a nursery assistant earning £8 an hour. She works 30 hours a week and cannot work any longer because she has school-age children. Edith was mortified about the effect of the cut in working tax credits on her daughter and her family’s welfare. What does the hon. Gentleman think the Prime Minister should say to people like Edith up and down the land as to how they can trust his word in the future?

[Ian Blackford]

The sad reality is that I do not think the Prime Minister has anything to say to Edith in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That is why I am appealing to hon. Members on both sides of the House to reflect on the damage that these measures will do to Edith and others. We are having a good debate today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Blackford]

I want to finish off as I have spoken for quite some time.

Perhaps it is little wonder that the Government want to redefine poverty. The numbers being pushed into poverty are frightening. It is not a price that a civilised society can pay.

In conclusion, I am grateful that we are having this debate today, but it must not end here. I would plead with the Government to change course before it is too late. These millions of families should not be affected by these tax credit changes. I hope the Government act, but failure to do so would demonstrate yet again that we need full powers over Scotland’s welfare system to be in Scottish hands, not the hands of the Chancellor and the Work and Pensions Secretary.

There is a clear contrast, with a Tory Government in Westminster attacking the poor and a Scottish Government using their powers to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. The Scottish Government have invested £100 million to ensure no one pays the bedroom tax and invested £40 million to protect council tax benefit. That is a caring, compassionate Scottish Government. If Westminster wants to punish the poor, it should give Scotland powers over tax and spending so that we can protect our own people from this heartless Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

All of us who are here today share a belief in the welfare state. In a country like ours, it is right that we offer help to the most needy, and that there should be a safety net for those in difficult circumstances, but under the Labour Government the welfare system became immensely unfair in its discrepancies.

Today’s debate goes to the heart of who we are as a country and what we stand for as a people. It is about more than Treasury statistics: it is about real people. That is why I am proud to support these tax reforms as part of a package set out by the Chancellor. They are fundamentally the right thing to do if we are honour the true notions of what welfare is, and what it is to work.

I want to look back at history—

[Ian Blackford]

Would the hon. Lady like to comment on what was said this afternoon by the Adam Smith Institute, whose views are often quoted by the Conservative Government? It said that

“working tax credits are the best form of welfare we have, and cutting them would be a huge mistake”.

[Suella Fernandes]

I disagree with that comment, assuming that it has been rightly attributed. I believe that tax credits have distorted the very notion of what welfare was supposed to be. Let us look back to welfare’s genesis in the Beveridge report, which was published 73 years ago, in 1942. Opposition Members tend to claim a monopoly on William Beveridge, but he was not the socialist Robin Hood whom they so often cite. He was an economist, versed in the principles of contribution and industry, and his principles were very clear. They were about taking responsibility, alongside the state’s establishment of a “national minimum”. They were about ensuring that the most vulnerable were looked after, while also ensuring that the nation remained fiscally viable. We have drifted away from that concept of welfare—that it should provide occasional and temporary support for those in unemployment, sickness and retirement. We now have a system whereby the state is subsidising low pay, and that cannot be right. This Government are introducing reforms, and restoring the principle that welfare should be the safety net that it was intended to be.

I want to make three main points. First, the tax credit system has allowed business to act in a way that is both unpalatable and bad for the economy, facilitating the underpayment of workers and sanctioning chronic under-training and under-investment in those workers. If a business knows that low wages will be topped up by the state, what is the point in investing in them, providing extra training and more scales and promotion? The business people I meet in my constituency are crying out for more skilled work forces. Secondly, the deployment of the tax credit system was chronically dysfunctional, and very confusing for many people. Lastly, the Conservative party is nothing without social justice. This measure will restore social justice to the heart of our economic principles, and I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I will not give way at the moment.

Alistair Darling went on:

“One of the unintended consequences is that we are now subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended.”

Like us, he was not calling for the end of tax credits. He made it clear:

“That is not an argument for scrapping tax credits, it is an argument for making sure that you adjust the system. And it’s also an argument for making sure that we do our level best to drive up those levels of wages”.

We recognise that as well.

The second reason is that the deficit the Government inherited in 2010 was equivalent to about £6,000 for every household in the country. That was being added to the national debt every year. It is now down to £3,300 per annum. Then, we were borrowing £1 for every £4 we spent. We have got that down to £1 for every £10. The world was beginning to doubt our ability to pay our way.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will not give way.

This Government’s mandate is to get our spending down, run a surplus and get our national debt down, and these reforms are a crucial part of that. That is what we were elected to do, and that is what the House agreed just last week. In particular, our general election mandate is to make reforms to reduce the welfare bill by £12 billion.

Tax Credits

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that someone working full time and earning £17,000 a year will lose close to £2,000 as a result of these measures? Why do the Government want to punish hard-working families in this way, at the same time as they are increasing the inheritance tax threshold? This is vindictive and nasty.

[Mark Garnier]

I am not sure I recognise the figure of £2,000 on a £17,000 income, and I do not accept that this Government are punishing hard-working people. I see a Government who are doing an enormous amount by reducing the threshold tax rates and by helping small businesses. We have seen more people come into work than there have ever been before. This Government have had a huge number of successes, so I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is describing.

There are two particular reasons why I support this measure, the first of which was highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) in talking about the effect that tax credits have on employers. We do not know exactly the extent to which this has been the case, but without a shadow of a doubt some employers will have been not paying the right salary or pay, given that the Government are subsidising not necessarily those people on low incomes but the employers employing people on low incomes. We also know that if that did happen early on, it is much more difficult to unravel it now, which is why it is very important that we have the new national minimum living wage. It is there to ensure that wages do start going up, although I concede that this does not necessarily cover it all.