National Insurance Contributions Bill

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

No. We agree with the view of Tony Blair and, apparently, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that VAT is the right tax to raise if one wants to get a substantial sum of money. The hon. Gentleman will find that most economists take the view that in terms of the impact on jobs, increasing employers’ national insurance contributions is far more damaging than any increase in VAT.

As a result of the package of measures that we are putting in place, employees earning under £35,000 a year will pay less in income tax and national insurance contributions overall, and employers will pay less national insurance on employees earning under £20,000 a year. As well as the 880,000 low earners taken out of income tax, almost 1 million low earners will no longer pay national insurance contributions, while the number of low earners for whom employers pay no national insurance contributions will rise by about 650,000. It is also worth mentioning that people who will now be exempt from paying national insurance will retain the same entitlement to contributory benefits. However, tackling the deficit remains the priority, and the benefits to low earners could be achieved only through the increase in national insurance contribution rates included in the Bill. This decision is fair and progressive, and it will help to support the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

Let me turn to part 2 of the Bill. In the June Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an employer national insurance contribution holiday for new businesses in countries and regions with a high dependency on the public sector. This holiday will apply across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and many regions of England—the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the west midlands and east midlands, and the south-west. Those areas have a higher proportion of jobs in the public sector than the rest of the country, and as we take the much-needed steps to rebalance our economy, it is vital that they benefit from additional support.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

There is no doubt that one welcomes this package of measures, which will help the lower paid in particular. However, will my hon. Friend revisit the Government’s decision to exclude businesses in the south-east from the national insurance holiday? Otherwise, it could be seen to discriminate against local entrepreneurs there and hit the areas that need higher employment.

[Mr Gauke]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but the fact is that we have limited resources and have inherited a legacy in which the private sector is relatively strong in some areas, such as his constituency and mine, but much weaker in others. At a time when we cannot rely on massive public spending, and when the public sector will have to find economies, it is perfectly reasonable that we have adopted the approach of focusing on areas where there is high dependence on the public sector.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I do not agree with that point. There is a clear principle: the basis on which people were investing in Equitable Life. At that point, no one knew about the maladministration.

We should also bear in mind the issue of practicality and the lack of information available to Equitable Life’s policyholders. Hon. Members should reflect on the fact that no one would have made investment decisions based on anything that happened prior to 1992 until that information was in the public domain. That is why the group has been excluded from the calculation of relative loss.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. No one suggests that the situation is not difficult, but whether or not one was aware of maladministration, and whether or not it existed pre ’92, surely the central point is that annuitants who took out a policy pre ’92 suffered relative loss post ’92, courtesy of maladministration. To return to an earlier point, perhaps there is a moral duty to include such people in the compensation, as I believe that the parliamentary ombudsman suggested.

[Mr Hoban]

The parliamentary ombudsman’s findings were clear: she said that the maladministration started in 1991, but that it would not have been obvious to policyholders until September 1992.

Let me deal with two issues that hon. Members should have take into account in assessing the point. First, as has been mentioned, there are challenges around getting information for the pre ’92 period. Secondly, there is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North about the timing of losses. We recognise that pre ’92 with-profits annuitants were affected by how Equitable Life was run. Sir John Chadwick and Towers Watson looked into what those WPAs would have received from Equitable Life had there been no maladministration. They concluded that they received more from Equitable Life as a result of maladministration than they would have done had it been properly regulated. That was because Equitable Life paid out more to them in the early years than it would have done had there been no maladministration. Let me give an example to prove that.

If a with-profits annuitant had purchased their policy in 1989 and gained through that purchase an income of £7,200, by 1993 the policyholder would have been receiving an annuity of approximately £10,000 per annum. Part of that sum was a result of the bonuses that had been declared on the policy since commencement. It is recognised that Equitable Life was paying higher bonuses than it could afford during the late 1980s and early 1990s. If Equitable Life had not been over-bonusing during that period, Towers Watson has calculated that the policyholder would have received only £9,500 per year. It is a consequence of the maladministration that the policyholder is receiving £500 more than he or she should have during that period.

Equitable Life continued to overpay bonuses throughout most of the 1990s. As a result, by 2002 that policyholder was receiving £17,000 per annum. If the over-bonusing had not taken place, the policyholder would have received only £15,800, so he or she was still receiving more as a consequence of maladministration.

In 2003, Equitable Life cut the rate of annuity payments to its with-profits policyholders by about 20%. In the absence of maladministration, the value of payments to with-profits policyholders would also have been cut, although, owing to market performance, by only 18%. After the cuts in 2003, our example policyholder was receiving £12,900 per year from Equitable Life. Had there been no maladministration, he or she would have been receiving only £12,300. I hope that that example has helped to clarify the consequences of maladministration, namely that even after the cuts in 2003 policyholders are still receiving more than they would have if Equitable Life had been properly regulated. For a range of reasons, their plight is not as it has been represented.

The first question to be asked, then, is “When did maladministration affect policyholders and the decisions that were made?” The second relates to the practicality of extracting data pre-1992, which is well established and has been well aired in the Chadwick report and elsewhere; and the third concerns the consequence of maladministration in Equitable Life, which is that with-profits annuitants are receiving more over the lifetime of their policy than they would have received if that maladministration had not taken place.

Government Spending Cuts

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

We are maintaining the young person’s guarantee. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that the clear advice that we have had is that that particular part of the young person’s guarantee was simply not effective and was wasteful—that the proportion of expenditure that was being saved as a consequence of it was minor and the administration costs were huge. I would instead point out to her the real action that we are taking to help young people in these tough times, with an additional 50,000 apprenticeship starts. That will make a real difference and will be far more effective than the scheme that we are amending in order to save money, which frankly was simply not working.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Perhaps the Chief Secretary would like to take this opportunity to correct a fundamental flaw in the thinking of the Opposition in believing that spending cuts necessarily take money out of the economy, whereas in reality every pound that is spent and borrowed by Government ultimately comes from the private sector, and we need a strong private sector-led recovery to help us to reduce the deficit.

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He will also be aware that some of these funds are going to be used to avoid part of the tax on jobs that the previous Administration were intent on, and that will help to preserve employment in this country.