Finance Bill (First sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The extent, nature and quality of advice received by a person wanting a pension is of great importance and significance. That is particularly the case considering that, in 2017, 30% of the working age population is at state pension age or older. The Department for Work and Pensions recently summarised perfectly the importance of pensions advice on its website:

“For most people in the UK, their pension savings will be their largest financial asset, which they will save towards over the course of their working lives”.

That gets to the nub of the matter. Hopefully, most of us will be saving towards a pension for the majority of our lives and we are ultimately relying on that to secure a good-quality standard of living when we retire. Therefore, the advice received matters a great deal.

For many, the securing of pension advice is, given the nature of their employment, for example, not as problematic. People who work in certain sectors, such as the finance sector, on the whole will find that their companies automatically cover pension advice. For others, the cost of such advice is minimal in the grand scheme of things. However, it has to be said that, for those who do not have much disposable cash and whose retirement is dependent on making wise investments with their pensions and ensuring that they save the right amount, good-quality advice is the key to a more secure retirement. I am sure that that will be greeted with unanimous nodding from Government members, if nothing else.

As Committee members know, the financial advice market review was launched in August 2015

“to explore ways in which government, industry and regulators could take individual and collective steps to stimulate the development of a market that delivers affordable and accessible financial advice and guidance to everyone.”

That is a laudable endeavour if ever there was one. It set out a strong and compelling case that there is a retirement “advice gap” for those without significant wealth. Research by Unbiased, an organisation of Financial Conduct Authority-regulated advisers who are independent of product providers, found that those who sought retirement advice increased their retirement savings by an average of £98 a month. However, less than one third of people have accessed financial advice on their pension. The financial advice market review found that many people perceived financial advice to be unaffordable or “not for people” like them.

The advice gap is not getting any smaller. Although the introduction of the exemption for the first £500-worth of pensions advice to employees is welcome, particularly as it replaces the provisions that limited the advice that people could receive—the cap was set at £150—we think that that does not go far enough. Most people in the pension advice sector would reasonably point out that £500-worth of tax-free advice is a relatively small figure given the importance of the decisions that people face. There are genuine questions to be asked about the impact that such a figure will have on the current pensions advice gap and, importantly, on the quality of that advice.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the affordability of pensions advice, but the trustworthiness of pensions advice is also an issue. Even I—I am fairly numerate—do not trust the advice I am given, although fortunately the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority gives better advice than most. Many ordinary people not only think that it is not for the likes of them and are rather nervous, but fear that they are not given correct and disinterested advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

We all agree that the current model of legal expenses or indemnity insurance for employees is wholly inadequate to the modern workplace. It is worth getting a plug in here in relation to the household insurance that people have for when they wish to defend their position in court, whether criminal or civil. I have experience of some of these policies not being fit for purpose. That goes to the heart of some of these issues, although it is not directly related. I am sure that other Members have had people come to them with insurance policies that they bought thinking they would cover them for this, that or the other, only to find that they are not fit for purpose. It is worth this Committee sending the message out that some of those policies are not up to scratch.

Getting back to the point, under the current system, only an employee who has had an allegation made against them can claim for legal expenses, which will be deducted from their earnings. Potentially, if a person is called as a witness at a public hearing, he or she will immediately be put out of pocket for any legal expenses. Similarly, if an employee is to give evidence at a public hearing, perhaps in one of our Committee Rooms in this building, under the current system they will be out of pocket if they need legal counsel. That is a deterrent to both employee and employer. The measure would tidy up and expand the current, rather vague, provision to cover employees giving evidence at public hearings, which we welcome; however, I have a number of questions.

How many employers will the new measure cover? Will it cover all employers? How extensive is it? Are any particular sectors affected by the measure? What is the estimated cost of such a measure to the Exchequer? Does the measure include cover for employment tribunals? That has been a bone of contention in the past few months, in the light of the Government’s introduction of quite significant fees for people making employment tribunal claims.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is evidence that thousands of people have been deterred from bringing a case to employment tribunals simply because of the fees.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why it is important to tease out the issues. People get confused and deeply worried about these matters, so we need clarity.

Our concern is that the measure will, in essence, be used as a tax break for employers, to the detriment of employees. I am not saying that that is the intention, but it is important to get clarity. Given the lack of detail, we believe that a review of the impact of the changes on the coverage of legal expenses is in order. It would focus specifically on the effectiveness of the measure, the value of the relief and, of course, how many employers and employees it brings within its purview. I reaffirm the point: it is important that this area is clarified and that people know the direction of travel, which is why we moved the amendment, to keep tabs on the proposal.

Finance Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with that particular point.

We know the Government’s overall stated aim is to crack down on what they say is significant avoidance related to non-contractual payments in lieu of notice. To do this, there is a complex set of formulas to mandate what will be considered as notice pay, even when that is not actually given in lieu of notice. Amendment 1 addresses our concern that the Government are giving themselves the power to change the meaning of basic pay for the purpose of calculating notice pay. That could significantly change the basis of the calculations, so the Minister should set out more clearly the intention of this measure.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, of course. Does he agree that a lump sum on termination of employment could be considered as potential income over a period of years, and should not be considered just as a lump sum to be taxed within one year?

[Peter Dowd]

Again, that goes to the heart of the issue. The Government are trying to focus on a particular moment in time, rather than taking into account the fact that a person might be out of employment for a long time.

We see a running theme of this Government in this Bill and so many of their other actions: they are removing powers from Parliament and giving them to Ministers. But other elements have been tacked on to the clause that are seemingly unconnected to the stated aims about payments in lieu of notice. It is clear that the Government are laying the ground so that workers who have already lost their jobs should pay tax on more of their termination payments. Is that the message that the Government are now sending to the likes of the BAE workers? Is it the message they want to send to the victims of redundancy? There can be no other explanation for this clause. It gives the Treasury powers through delegated legislation to raise or lower the tax-free threshold.

Changes to the tax-free allowance for termination payments were first mooted by the Office of Tax Simplification in 2013 when it cited such payments as an employee benefit that would merit further study. I find it rather peculiar that a payment to an employee who has just lost their job is considered as an employee benefit—how bizarre. It is as though a termination payment were some sort of added extra and a huge inconvenience for employers, when in fact that worker has just lost their job and this may well be the last payslip they receive for a long time. The Government have promised not to reduce the threshold, so it comes as a bitter pill that the Bill will allow them to do just that.

If there is no intention to reduce the threshold, Conservative Members should have no hesitation in voting for amendment 2, which would allow the threshold only to be increased through delegated legislation, removing the power to decrease the amount. I wait with bated breath for the Minister to keep the Government’s word and accept our amendment.

In the previous debate, the Minister went to great lengths to claim that the Government’s plans to give themselves the power to water down the tax-free threshold on termination payments, and to exclude injury to feelings from tax-free compensation payments, had nothing to do with attacks on those who have just lost their jobs. No, instead that is apparently part of some ambitious strategy that the Government have to tackle tax avoidance.

The Minister is so concerned about tax avoidance that he has claimed that

“when the Government find tax avoidance, we will clamp down on it.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 253.]

Such a bold assertion makes me wonder if the Minister has even read his own Finance Bill. Has he read clause 15, which we will debate later, through which his Government are loosening the rules to allow more non-doms to receive tax breaks if they use money from offshore tax havens to invest in the UK?

[Peter Dowd]

We will deal with that a little later. The hon. Gentleman may want to pay attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who will expose that fallacy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is it not the case that the Government are squeezing money out of people who cannot escape from taxation—namely, less well-off people who lose their jobs—rather than chasing the big money people who evade and avoid taxes?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend, as ever, puts it in a nutshell. That is the case.

Has the Minister read clauses 29 to 32 and schedules 8 and 9? With those measures, the Government are deliberately signposting a loophole to ensure that non-doms can set up offshore trusts that are exempt from planned changes to non-domiciled status. That exemption completely undermines the Government’s planned changes. The fact is that this Government are not interested in tackling the scourge of tax avoidance and evasion, which costs the UK economy billions every year. They have no interest in ensuring that those who invest foreign money in the UK do so in a transparent and open manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I will deal with the amendments and some of the issues introduced by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd).

Let me cover first the jobs position. The only criticism I have of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who raised this matter, is that, of course, jobs are created not by the Government but by businesses operating under the conditions that are created by the Government. It is important we remember that, because we should not take it for granted. The jobs performance of many countries in the European Union has been pitiful by comparison. Not that long ago, this country created more jobs than the rest of the European Union put together. That is not a trivial point; it makes a difference to millions of people across the country.

The hon. Member for Bootle ought not to sneer at the number of jobs. He is also wrong about the quality of those jobs. Figures from the Office for National Statistics clearly show that most of the jobs that have been created are permanent, full-time and skilled managerial or professional jobs. They are not rubbish jobs, as he calls them in that slightly sneering way. They are good-quality jobs and are providing good livelihoods for people across our country.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that Governments effectively have no role in creating jobs. The reality is that macroeconomic policies have an enormous effect on the creation of jobs. Those countries that have chosen foolishly to join the euro and now have a massively overvalued currency, in effect, have lost millions of jobs in some cases. We have fortunately not been part of the euro, and currency flexibility is a crucial part of that; that is Government policy.

[Mr Harper]

I completely agree, but the hon. Gentleman misquotes me. I did not say that Government have no role. I said that Government do not create the jobs, but I explicitly said that Government create the conditions within which businesses operate and can create jobs. He is absolutely right about that, and I do not necessarily demur from what he said. The euro and the straitjacket of monetary policy across Europe has led to appalling situations in some countries where unemployment rates are very high, which I do not think is sustainable. That is why our economic performance is incredibly strong. We should not throw that away.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) used the phrase “we have closed the gap”. I am not sure that it is quite closed yet. There is still a gap as regards non-payment of tax. Fair enough, measures have been taken to move towards ensuring that tax is paid by the rich in the way it should be, but the gap has not yet closed.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Lady may remember that the tax expert Richard Murphy calculated at one point that the genuine tax gap—not the one that the Government give us—was £119 billion a year. That has no doubt come down slightly, but there is a long way to go before we collect that tax. That figure overwhelms the amount of money that the Government will squeeze out of workers who are losing their jobs.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree and I think that the tax gap is probably significantly larger than the Government are suggesting. On that note, small countries are very good at having a very small tax gap—a wee plug for Scottish independence there.

We have a couple of other specific concerns about termination payments. We are still not clear about people who have faced termination as a result of injury, injury to feelings or psychiatric injury. We do not want them to receive less as a result of this change. I heard what the Minister said about those people who have been involved in discrimination cases when the decision has been in their favour, but we want to ensure that people who are trying to move on from a situation after termination but who have been injured or have suffered an injury to feelings or a psychiatric injury are not disadvantaged by this change in the rules.

I will not speak for much longer, but let me say one more thing. The Government’s explanatory notes say that the Government are looking to ensure that all payments in lieu of notice, not just contractual payments in lieu of notice, are taxable earnings. That way of putting it is what most concerns me, because it is clear that workers will be impacted by this change when it comes in. I expect that this change will be proposed by the Government and accepted, so I would very much like a commitment from the Minister that, if it comes in in the next tax year, the Treasury will do an impact assessment one or two years in to see the specific impact on that group of low-income workers who the Government suggest are in the minority. I would like to see its impact, and if it proves to be particularly negative, I want the Treasury to take mitigating steps to change it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

I am just about to conclude.

The measures in clause 5 are good, and they are part of a wider pattern of behaviour: a war on tax avoidance that we have waged in order to get more money for schools, hospitals and police in my constituency and others. They are part of a wider economic policy that has delivered not just record employment—the highest since 1975—and record tax cuts for those at the bottom end, but a record increase in the national living wage that will give us one of the highest living wages in the entire developed world. It is a pattern of behaviour that sees us making those who need to pay their tax pay it, so that we can have an economy that works for everybody.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I will speak only very briefly in support of the Labour amendments as most of what I would say has been said by my hon. Friends. The reality is that, in this country, we have a revenue problem, not an expenditure problem. The Government are constantly imposing austerity measures on ordinary people and on public services, and we see the result of that in the health service, local government and education. We need to get more money into the Treasury, which means dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion among the corporates—the big money people—not squeezing the relatively small amounts of income given to people who lose their jobs.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that, since the start of the new Government, Mr Pickles, who was formerly a Member in this House and is now in the other place—[Interruption.] To the best of my knowledge, he has not been replaced as the anti-corruption tsar. Indeed, unless the House has been informed otherwise, that particular thread of Government policy seems to be lost.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.

The reality is that many Government Members have close associations with the City and with big money. I do not want to accuse anyone individually, but that is the reality. Many have been in hedge funds and wherever. The biggest scandal of all took place within Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. A few years ago, Dave Hartnett, who was the boss of HMRC, was involved in sweetheart deals with the corporates, losing countless billions for the Treasury. He was not doing anything illegal, but cosy deals with corporates is not exactly public service. When he finally left HMRC, he set himself up as a consultant, advising the same corporates on how to avoid taxes. That is an absolute scandal. We should be stopping such practices.

Tax officers should be public servants who are driven by the public service ethos. At the grassroots level, the ordinary members of staff are driven in that way. Many of them are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, with which I am associated. The PCS has argued for many years that we should have more tax officers, and that they should be better paid and better appreciated for the work that they do. I would like to think that, instead of closing tax offices and squeezing the number of tax officials, this Government would increase their number. PCS has told me on many occasions that every tax officer collects many times their own salary, so every time we appoint another tax officer, we get more than their salary coming back. That is what we should be doing. It has been a scandal for many years. Even before this dreadful Conservative Government, we were not collecting sufficient tax. We were allowing tax evasion and tax avoidance to go unchallenged. I want to see a world in which people, particularly those with plenty of money, pay their taxes at the highest level. I am not talking about ordinary working people.

Finally, it was recently suggested that quantitative easing, which is not strictly relevant to this amendment, is benefiting the better-off and not the ordinary people. It would be good if some of that QE could find its way into the Treasury coffers and help the spend on public services. That would be a better way of generating more jobs, more demand and better services in our economy.

[Rachel Maclean]

This is indeed an important Bill. I look forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee and to helping it to become law.

We have heard a number of things about narrative and the tone from the Opposition. I say to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that I have nothing to do with hedge funds or with rich people in the City—unless we are talking about the city of Birmingham and about my friends who are rich in happiness and goodwill, if not money.

There is always a fine balance to strike when seeking to legislate on these matters. Generally speaking, we have a good regime of employment law in this country, notwithstanding some of the questions about the gig economy, which we are currently examining in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Although the gig economy is outside the scope of this debate, it does need further scrutiny.

I am worried about Labour’s amendments. This Bill provides protections. It protects the public purse against those who seek to avoid and evade tax. The Opposition have raised some examples, and they were right to do so. This Bill does not condone those people or support their actions at all.

We know that, in most cases, the British taxpayer agrees with the system of taxation, but when that system is seen as unfair, it does lose the consent of ordinary workers. It is usually people with deep pockets and the resources to take advantage of the loopholes who cause deep anxiety among the British public. Therefore, I welcome the measures that we have set out in the Bill as they will end such practice.

The Opposition’s answer to the issue of taxation and revenue is to raise taxes on everyone. That is not the Conservative view. We prefer to keep taxes on the low paid and on small businesses low—that is what we have done already—and, at the same time, to crack down on the tax avoiders. Ultimately, that brings in more tax, and underpins a thriving economy.

There are measures in this Bill that will end some exploitative practices of big businesses and of a minority of individuals in this country. That will help the Government to collect the tax that is due to them from big businesses as well as from overseas investors and rich non-doms. We cannot allow a minority of businesses to tarnish the reputation of UK plc and our small and medium-sized businesses. However, we must remember that 99% of businesses in this country are SMEs. They are not this caricature of rich, greedy hedge fund people which, frankly, I do not recognise, but we hear about from the Opposition. They are ordinary men and women up and down this country, advancing their dream of a better life by setting up a small business. In so doing, they are creating jobs for other people. I worry about the tone of this debate as it sends out a message from this Chamber. We need to send out a message that encourages people to take that risk and start businesses. That is why we need to strike the right balance.

I speak from experience. Before I entered this House, I spent 25 years working in small businesses. I ran my own business and I was a human resources director in other businesses. I have worked for some small midlands manufacturing companies, advising them on employment issues. I have seen the stress and worry that employers go through when they are dealing with a termination. Of course, termination has an impact on the employee, but let us not forget that these employers are trying to do their best under difficult circumstances. Without doubt, there are some unscrupulous employers, but I have seen small business owners lose sleep and suffer from stress and anxiety. Sometimes, despite the best efforts of management, a job does not work out. We are dealing with a trust relationship after all. We are talking about the vagaries of human nature, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) observed, small businesses often do not have access to qualified HR advice and employment lawyers as they are too expensive and beyond their budget.

Some of Labour’s amendments, particularly those on the injury-to-feelings issue, cloud the whole legislative landscape for small business owners, making it extremely difficult for them to know what to do in a stressful situation. That is why I do not support these amendments. The provisions are purely about preventing the manipulation of the rules.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Just on that point about small businesses, I agree with the hon. Lady that they are immensely valuable to the economy and we must support them. However, would the Government not do better to stop banks such as RBS squeezing the life out of small businesses by very, very unfair financial practices, which has certainly happened to businesses in my constituency?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that members of the Treasury team are doing everything they can on those points, and I welcome the work that they are doing in that regard. I have also seen small businesses in my constituency being affected by such practices. I do not condone them at all. We all want a country where good work is rewarded, and where employers and employees can work together. No system of legislation is perfect, but this Bill does strike the right balance. It is sensible and well thought out and we will continue to scrutinise it in Committee. Therefore, I will not vote for Labour’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie, and to respond to the first of what I am sure will be a series of lively and exciting debates on the Finance Bill. Before I respond to some of the more detailed points raised, as well as the amendments, let me remind the Committee of the overall purpose of clause 5.

The clause is designed to tighten and clarify the tax treatment of termination payments to make the rules fairer and to prevent manipulation. Our tax treatment of termination payments is one of the most generous in the world. That is something of which we can be proud and something that this clause does not change, but the current rules can also be unclear and complicated, as many hon. Members have suggested. Some payments are taxed as earnings, others are taxed only above £30,000 and others are completely exempt from income tax and national insurance contributions. Most employers use the rules as intended, but the complexity in the system leaves it open to manipulation. Indeed, a small minority of individuals and employers, particularly those with the most generous pay-offs—this is an important point—have thought to manipulate the rules by categorising large pay-offs as termination payments, rather than earnings.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) made the point that the tax-free amount has not been indexed for many years. Had it been indexed properly, it would now be £71,000, not £30,000. Would not that be a way of avoiding any of these difficulties, as the lump sum would be so much bigger?

[Mel Stride]

This is one of the most generous thresholds in the world. In fact, there is no threshold at all in Germany and the United States of America, because none of these payments is treated as being tax-exempt.

Such categorisation means that payments qualify for the £30,000 tax exemption and an unlimited employer national insurance contributions exemption. The situation is clearly unfair for the vast majority of employees, who are unable to manipulate their payments in this way. Clause 5 makes changes to prevent such manipulation in the future, while still ensuring that the vast majority pay no income tax on their payment. The first £30,000 of all termination payments will remain exempt from tax.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) made a general point about the Conservative party’s treatment of workers, and I make no apologies for the way this Government have stood up for workers up and down our country. We are committed to enhancing workers’ rights. We introduced the national living wage, and we doubled fines for firms that break the rules in that respect. We appointed the first director of labour market enforcement, and we are committed, as we have constantly said, and as our Prime Minister has made clear, to protecting workers’ rights as we leave the European Union.

Nearly 85% of payments are below £30,000, so retaining the threshold will ensure that the vast majority of people going through the difficult experience of being made redundant will still pay no tax whatever. That means that the UK continues to have one of the most generous tax exemptions for termination payments, and I have mentioned Germany and the United States having no tax exemption at all.

Clause 5 tightens the tax rules for termination payments to prevent manipulation—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) in an excellent contribution. He highlighted our overall record on bringing in taxes where attempts are made to avoid tax, and I referred to the £160 billion raised since 2010. He referred to our being at the forefront of the OECD base erosion and profit shifting project, and we have also brought in the diverted profits tax to clamp down on the kind of behaviour he referred to.

Let us not lose sight of the purpose of bringing in tax, which is to raise public finances so that we can employ doctors, nurses, paramedics, police and soldiers and pay for all those great public services that all of us hold so dear. That is why I am so proud of this Government’s record on clamping down on tax avoidance more generally.

The Office of Tax Simplification has said:

“the well-advised can often end up better off than the unadvised, as they are more able to structure their employment contract (or, indeed, their termination payment) to achieve the better tax treatment.”

The hon. Member for Bootle said in this House only last month:

“If there is genuine evidence of the abuse of payments in lieu of notice, that needs to be acted on”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 206.]

It is fair to say that, while the hon. Gentleman is a very amiable fellow, he is not right about everything, but on this point he is actually very right. This clause is to deal with the very abuse about which he has previously expressed concern. We will prevent employers from categorising large pay-offs as tax-free payments, rather than earnings. Instead, employers will now be required to tax what the employee would have earned if they had worked their notice period in full. All payments in lieu of notice will now also be taxable as earnings to equalise the treatment of those with and without a contractual right to such a payment.

Finally, clause 5 clarifies that there is a total tax exemption for payments on account of injury or disability of an employee. In 2014, the Office of Tax Simplification raised the possibility of removing this exemption. It recognised that that would be a draconian approach, but it noted that interpretation is

“often a problem area for employers and their advisers.”

However, we have not pursued that approach. Instead, we have provided certainty by confirming the current position established by case law in statute. The total exemption relates to termination payments provided on account of a physical or psychiatric injury that prevents the employee from carrying on the duties of the employment, which hopefully addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Therefore, employees with evidence of an identified medical condition will pay no tax on related termination payments.

Some Members raised concerns in previous debates that the Government would be taxing compensation paid to employees where it is proven that they have been discriminated against. Once again, I am happy to reassure them. All compensation for awards for proven discrimination during work will continue to remain completely exempt from tax. There was an interesting interaction between my hon. Friend the Member for Reddich (Rachel Maclean) and the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) on this point. We accept that, where there is a tribunal award in respect of injury to feelings, it is treated in exactly the same way as when an employer accepts that discrimination has actually occurred. All the clause seeks is to confirm the long-standing position that genuine compensation payments are tax exempt, while ensuring there is no loophole that can be used to reduce the tax that is owed.

Let me now turn to the amendments. As the hon. Member for Bootle set out, amendment 1 would remove the power to amend the meaning of basic pay for the purposes of calculating post-employment notice pay by regulation. When we consulted on this measure, we listened to responses that asked us to make the basic pay definition more simple. It now excludes overtime, bonuses, commission and tips. However, we introduced this power to allow the Government to act quickly and to remain flexible if there is manipulation in the future. Any amendment to the meaning of basic pay would be subject to a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure, so the House would have to expressly approve any change to the meaning. I therefore urge the House to resist the amendment.

Amendment 2 and consequential amendment 3, also tabled by the Labour party, would remove the power to reduce the £30,000 threshold by regulation. Some Members have raised concerns during the debate that the Government intend to reduce this tax-free amount. We have no intention to do so. If we were to do so, we would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) pointed out in his excellent speech, be required to do so by an affirmative statutory instrument. However, I repeat that we have no intention of reducing this tax-free amount. I therefore urge the House to resist the amendment.

Amendment 4 would include injured feelings within the definition of injury. As I outlined earlier, clause 5 confirms that termination payments provided on account of physical or psychiatric injury will be completely tax exempt—an important point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. However, the clause also confirms the established position that injury to feelings is not covered by this definition. The reason for this restriction is clear: without it, there would be a large loophole—as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean—allowing payments to be routinely reclassified on account of injury to feelings, and without medical evidence, simply in order for people to pay no tax. These things are hard to prove or disprove, and would be difficult for HMRC to police. However, it remains the case that payments on account of an injury to feelings, like any normal termination payment, will qualify for the £30,000 tax exemption. I therefore likewise urge the House to resist the amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There was I thinking that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was taking an interest in energy saving because he has six children. Apparently not.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Have not the Government actually cut support for solar because, together with new storage technologies, it threatens to become so successful that it would kill off any case for horrendously expensive nuclear?

[Andrew Jones]

The support for solar comes directly from people’s bills. When the costs of installation and generation come down, through efficiencies and economies of scale and production, so should support. We are taking steps to control the cost of support schemes and putting solar on the path to delivery without subsidy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last question, the location of the European Union’s agencies is clearly a matter for the European Union. We cannot credibly seek to leave the European Union and at the same time dictate to it where it should locate its agencies. On the initial items on his list, it will indeed be the UK Government’s objective, as we go into the negotiations, to protect our financial services sector.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Since the EU referendum, the substantial sterling depreciation has seen exports increase and the balance of trade deficit reduce from £13.7 billion in quarter 3 of last year to £5 billion in quarter 4. However, the Chancellor has repeatedly said that he is not concerned about the exchange rate. Is it not just plain wrong to dismiss the significance of the exchange rate?

[Mr Hammond]

I have never said that I was not concerned about the exchange rate. I have said that the Government do not take a view on what the appropriate exchange rate should be; that is very much a matter for the markets to determine. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been delighted to note that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement this morning has sent sterling up in the markets, demonstrating the confidence that the markets have in a future for this country under a Tory Government with a new mandate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

1. If his Department will increase the level of funding provided to the Department of Health.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

12. If his Department will increase the level of funding provided to the Department of Health.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Annual funding to the Department of Health is already being increased by £17 billion by 2020-21. This reflects the priority that the Government put on investing in the NHS.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

OECD statistics show that the Governments of Germany, France, Holland, Sweden and Denmark spend an average of 9% of GDP on health compared with 7.7% in the UK—a massive difference of £23 billion a year. The NHS is desperately underfunded and it is no surprise that it is suffering, so is the Chancellor really going to take this seriously in the Budget?

[Mr Gauke]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the OECD has more recently put out revised numbers to show that the UK’s expenditure on health is very close to some of those other countries. The fact is that we can only have a properly funded NHS if we have a strong economy, and only the Conservative party can deliver it—a point that the people of Copeland may have noticed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Of course. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to tell me that the company had chosen an EU location over London, so I am interested to hear him say that it has chosen Zurich—the only other possible non-EU location. I will look at the issue that he raises. It is our objective to have the most attractive location on this continent for inward investment and for foreign businesses to do their business.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Inflation is still below the Monetary Policy Committee’s official target, and the economy has long been at greater and more worrying risk of deflation than inflation. Will the Chancellor therefore be seeking to dissuade the Governor of the Bank of England from any thoughts of raising interest rates, which would simply inflict wholly unnecessary damage on the economy?

[Mr Hammond]

No. It is not for me to dissuade or persuade the Governor of the Bank of England in relation to interest rate policy. However, I will say this to reassure the hon. Gentleman: although this morning’s inflation figure—1.6%, as measured on the consumer prices index—is below the Bank of England’s target rate, the forecasts of the OBR and, indeed, the Bank suggest that the figure will meet and exceed the target rate later in the year.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I was a member of the Bill Committee and I made many of the points I wish to make at that time. I was not able to be in the Chamber for the first part of this debate, but I wanted to say a few words in support of what we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), speaking for the Scottish National party, have expressed strong words of scepticism about the Bill. I reinforce those words.

The very poorest need a much bigger state pension. For many people, a compulsory earnings-related state pension scheme would be much better value and would guarantee that everybody saved some of their earnings for a decent old age. That would be a much more positive way forward. I echo what has been said by the Opposition Front Benchers and am grateful for this opportunity to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s comments about that particular rail scheme to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary. My hon. Friend will know that we have a large programme of rail infrastructure in place and that the additional funding for the east-west rail link that was announced last week was outside that core rail programme. I hope that he will agree that the Oxford to Cambridge corridor represents a real growth opportunity for the south and the east of England to exploit Britain’s two best known universities and their world-class research reputations to enhance the productive capacity of our economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Since 23 June, there has been a significant depreciation of sterling and two announcements of major investments in UK motor manufacturing. The prospects for investment in UK manufacturing more widely are now much improved. Will the Chancellor be seeking to ensure that the more sensible exchange rate welcomed by Lord Mervyn King, among others, is sustained?

[Mr Hammond]

No. It is not the Government’s business to sustain or manage the exchange rate in any way, as the hon. Gentleman very well knows. We have an inflation target, but exchange rates are set by markets and reflect market views about the economy and expectations of the trajectory of the economy in the future. He is absolutely right to observe that, over the past six months, we have seen some remarkable endorsements of the British economy through large inward investment decisions made by foreign inward investors.

Technical and Further Education Bill (First sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Tracy Brabin]

Q David, I have been told that in some circumstances members of staff such as receptionists without relevant qualifications or training are carrying out careers guidance in colleges as a tick-box exercise. Are you concerned that there is no careers guidance provision in the Bill?

David Hughes: I am very concerned if that story about reception staff is true, because it is an incredibly important area of education and, of course, it does not start at 16; it starts a lot earlier. I would echo a lot of what Alison was saying. We need to think about key stage 4 rather than just look at age 16-plus, because the decisions that get made by young people and their parents and carers are critical to their future. We need to think about introducing them to the world of work rather than just providing them with some information about courses, so the work experience and work placements that the Sainsbury report and the skills plan rightly concentrate and focus on are really important to consider for key stage 4, rather than just waiting until 16. We want some of the best young people with good achievements at GCSE at 16 going into the technical route and apprenticeships rather than what we have now, which is mostly that if you do well at GCSE at 16, you take an academic route.

We know that probably about £1 billion is wasted when young people go on an academic route for a year and then move off it because they find it is not suitable for them. We need to stop that happening because that wastes money and, more importantly, young people are using up a year of their life on something that does not stimulate them or motivate them. We have got to go back into key stage 4 rather than just wait. It is critical that we get college information, advice and guidance right, but let us think about careers education through school, not just right at the end, and let us think about persuading the best young people to do technical if that is the right thing for them, because it should be high-quality to attract them.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q What David Hughes and Professor Fuller have been saying is striking. I recall comparisons made some 25 years ago by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and Professor Sig Prais between technical education in Britain and in Germany, Italy and Spain in particular, where they had up to 30 hours a week of contact-intensive pedagogic teaching over a period. In Britain it was nothing like that.

The underfunding of technical education and 16-to-19 education is noticeable. By contrast, at universities—I went there many years ago—you have a few lectures and a couple of seminars and tutorials, so the contact hours are much lower but the funding is much higher. Do you not think we have got this the wrong way around?

David Hughes: For lots of the technical routes, we are getting 12 to 14 hours of contact time, and that pales into insignificance compared to most of our competitors in the OECD. It is a really important issue. It is not just for technical, though; we have now got young people being offered only three A-levels rather than four AS-levels, and that is really shameful. It means that their opportunities to explore at 16 have been limited.

We really must address the investment issue to get the level of support that is required for young people. We are talking about young people who might have careers lasting 50 years-plus. They need a broad education to allow them to become learners, to think about continuous professional development, to change career probably two or three times and to be able to move when technology moves. I do not think that 12 to 14 hours of contact time for the 16-to-19 phase is enough. I do not think that the quality will be high enough or that the choice, even on A-level routes, is good enough, given the funding that is available.

Professor Alison Fuller: I am sure others will want to speak, but I would hate to say, just because we maybe think there is a big contrast in the numbers, that higher education is overfunded. I certainly would not want that message to come through.

There are a couple of other points. One is that a lot of vocational education—I still say that—happens in universities. The expansion of higher education has largely been in relation to vocational higher education courses in applied areas. A big cost of that is in equipment—lab space, technology, machinery and so on—and that same argument is behind suggesting that further education should really be better resourced. Good-quality technical education does not come cheap; the reality is that it is extremely expensive. We need very highly qualified vocational teachers—I include those who are moving in and out of employment, and I am sure Richard will speak about that, because he was part of the very influential report a couple of years ago from the commission chaired by Frank McLoughlin. It is a case of being serious about what it costs to provide a good-quality technical education, in terms of the people, resources, equipment and facilities.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q I wonder whether Mr Watkin would like to say something about sixth-form colleges and the squeeze on funding there.

Bill Watkin: We published a report recently about the impact of the current funding levels, which, although the Government have set them at a certain level, are set at that level following three significant cuts which have cost the sector about 17% since 2011. As David just said, we find that the number of A-levels being offered is increasingly only three rather than four; that minority subjects are being lost—it is not just the high-profile archaeology and history of art, but modern languages and sciences—and that the enrichment support, pastoral support, the activities after college and the careers guidance are all at risk because of low funding levels.

We are also finding, exactly as has been said, that international comparisons show we are not funding enough hours of tuition per week. In Singapore and Shanghai, for example, they are funded for approximately 30 hours a week, whereas in New South Wales it is 26 hours a week. In England it is about 15 hours a week. Of course, the impact of that is that students from more disadvantaged backgrounds will find it harder to use the untaught time. It is not just that there is not enough teaching time to cover the qualifications, but that the non-taught time has to be used effectively. It is much more difficult for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to use non-taught time well.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q It is a major factor. When Michael Gove was Secretary of State, I asked him why we were having to recruit so many engineers from abroad. He said that we were not training enough ourselves because our mathematics was not good enough and we could not get them up to the standards required. Resource is surely what the problem is.

Bill Watkin: It is certainly one of the problems. There is also the shift in what qualifications are available. To move away from apprenticeships and technical professional education for a moment and talk about the academic curriculum, we have just seen, for example, the loss of use of maths and the loss of statistics from the range of qualifications available. That means that young people coming into a sixth-form curriculum looking to study maths only have one route available for them at the moment. That is almost a commercial decision made by awarding organisations, but it is enormously unhelpful to young people who want to support their studies in engineering and physics by following a course of maths because the only course available is an A-level in maths. We would like to see, for example, a core maths qualification and a part 2 core maths that has A-level branding and equivalence, so that there is an alternative to an A-level maths qualification.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Q This is an interesting panel because it represents sixth forms and FE colleges. In Greater Manchester, where my constituency is, further education is a devolved function but sixth forms are not. We have just gone through an area review process, which I supported. Fortunately, we have strong civil servant and political leadership in Greater Manchester, but I can only describe the process as tortuous and complicated. It has come out of a number of reviews around mergers and synergies of FE colleges—it does not affect sixth forms. You get to that position and then have to enter negotiations between the FE colleges about co-operation. That really is a process of herding cats, in my opinion. There are things I would like to say, but this is an ongoing process so I will not say them in public for now, but the Government’s area review programme is going to be rolled out in places that are less well organised than Greater Manchester. It could be a recipe for chaos. Do the panel want to comment on that?

Richard Atkins: It would be best if I started. As you probably know, I have been the FE commissioner for about four weeks. I was not involved in chairing or attending the Greater Manchester review, although I know Theresa Grant, who chaired it. I am going to Manchester in the next three or four weeks to see how things are going and to talk to the individual colleges. I sat and observed the Education Committee scrutinising area reviews about two weeks ago. Generally, I think the process has worked reasonably well. Clearly they begin from a premise that each college is an independent corporation and therefore is able to make its own views. I accept that that can lead to what you describe as tortuous negotiations, because each college needs to be convinced and persuaded of the right solution.

We have now done waves 1, 2 and 3 of the five waves. Nearly 200 colleges have been through area reviews; some 88 of them are working towards merger, 50 of the sixth-form colleges are considering becoming academies, and 62 colleges have confirmed that they want to go for stand-alone status. We have done that in a remarkably short period. Colleges that are changing the nature of what they do can apply for a restructuring facility to support that. We have done that with a remarkable amount of co-operation and good will. I do not think the process is in any way perfect or a silver bullet that will resolve all the structural problems.

It became obvious in the Education Committee that it is different in each area. There are 37 area reviews, based on the local enterprise partnership areas, and experiences genuinely differ from one area to another. If you had told me at the beginning that at this stage, two thirds of the way through, we would have 88 colleges considering merger and that 62 stand-alones have had to carry out a rigorous analysis of their own data to be sure that they can stand alone financially—. I hope that what emerges from the process is a network in which more colleges are financially sustainable. I do not disagree that having those independent corporations gives governors the opportunity to make decisions for themselves, and therefore a high level of persuasion and influence is required to try to get the best results for learners.

In my new job, with my team of advisers, I am currently seeking to ensure that as often as possible, we get the right solution. I do not think it is a silver bullet. I do not think at the end of it we will have the perfect set of colleges across England, but I do think we will be in a significantly better place than we were when the process started only just over a year ago.

David Hughes: The Government have a choice. In Wales and Scotland, the Government decided to impose structural change, and in England they did not. There are pros and cons with both. We have to remember that we have had for the past 25 years in post-16 a managed market and a managed competition. It is probably fair to say that in the past four or five years, the management bit of that has been getting smaller and smaller, so we do have competition post-16. We recently challenged a decision by a regional schools commissioner to open a new sixth form in east London, because we think that sometimes competition really goes against the interests of young people in terms of quality and breadth of curriculum.

As Richard says, the area review process has been variable across the country. In some areas, it has helped enormously to move things forward quickly; in other areas, it has been more difficult and more awkward. We have got to think about the 2,100 school sixth forms, over half of which recruit fewer than 100 learners into year 12. The Government’s guidance suggests that you need at least 200 to make it both financially and educationally viable. In our autumn statement submission, we have asked, and we keep saying again and again, that if it is right for area reviews to happen for colleges with the rigour that Richard talked about and with really detailed five-year financial plans, why not do that with school sixth forms?

We have hundreds of thousands of young people learning in very small school sixth forms; you can make that work, but it is really difficult to get the breadth and quality right. We would really like to see that same rigour applied to school sixth forms. We know that some local authorities are starting to do that themselves, and it would be great to see Government supporting that and getting a framework for it across the country. You do not have to do it all at the same time but it would be nice to see that rolled through, in the interests of young people in terms of the quality and offer that they get.

Bill Watkin: I should just reiterate the difference between sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms, because they are not the same thing at all. I entirely agree with what David was just saying. To give an example, a sixth-form college straddles—usually successfully but sometimes slightly awkwardly and uncomfortably—two sectors: the FE sector and the schools sector. A sixth-form college offers a school-type curriculum, but it does so with economies of scale. For example, I recently visited a college that has 1,000 students studying maths A-level, and another where there are 400 students studying psychology A-level. These are not the small school sixth forms that David was just talking about; they are large colleges that are incorporated and therefore usually included in considerations about the FE sector. They were also included in the area review process, and there are those who say that it was not entirely helpful not to include school sixth forms while including sixth-form colleges—that did not necessarily make a great deal of sense.

The other consequence of straddling those two sectors is the relevance of the Bill to sixth-form colleges. Much of what is in the Bill will have only a very limited impact on a small number of colleges, and most of them will not be hugely touched by it. There are two areas of particular interest to sixth-form colleges: one is the insolvency regime and the impact on their finances, and the second is the applied general qualifications, which are enormously important to sixth-form colleges. Applied A-levels, BTECs and applied general qualifications are an enormously important part of a blended curriculum offered to students in sixth-form colleges as a pathway to high-end destinations such as universities; two students recently got into biomedical degrees at Russell Group universities with entirely BTEC provision. That is the sort of curriculum that sixth-form colleges offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I will not ask you about your experience with the banks.

Ian Pretty: Don’t ask! There are sections of the proposed legislation that talk about indemnities and guarantees given by the national authority, be it the UK Government or the Welsh Government. Again, that is fine. I am sure it must be giving some comfort to the creditors, but the risk, of course, is that the Government become the guarantor of last resort. It is noticeable that other sections of the legislation refer to the college that is in administration having to re-fund. It depends on the sums of money that are involved, but if you do that you run the risk of never getting out of the insolvency cycle.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Two issues have been raised in the past few minutes. One is mergers, and I think that David Hughes suggested that there could be a case for not enormous colleges staying as independent colleges; some might merge, but each could be judged on its own merits. But that should not be elided with the issue of sixth-form colleges doing A-levels and the contrast with small school sixth forms. I should say that I am a 25-year governor of a sixth-form college, a former teacher in further education and the chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges. The statistics produced by the Sixth-Form Colleges Association overwhelmingly show that sixth-form colleges do better in educational achievements and in value for money, and the Government would do well to persuade schools, local authorities or whoever to pool their sixth forms and create many more sixth-form colleges. That would be enormously advantageous to the country, to education and to young people.

The other issue is governance, which Ian Pretty talked about. I agree strongly that we ought to have breadth in our governing bodies. I have to say that the governing body of which I am a member has invariably had at least two members qualified in accountancy and at least two with legal qualifications, as well as members from the education sector, including primary and secondary schools, and from local businesses. It is small, tightly knit, monocultural governing bodies—perhaps drawn only from small local businesses—that tend to get out of control and that do not do too well. There was one glaring example of that in my constituency—I will not mention its name, but many of you will know about it. It got into a disastrous state, although it has now been picked up by a superb new principal. That breadth of governance, with all sorts of skills as well as commitments, is crucial. I wonder whether you accept that that is a sensible way of doing things.

Richard Atkins: Shall I begin? First, on interventions and area reviews, the quality of governance is critical to the success of the college—more critical than many governors realise. I see that when I go into colleges that are not doing well. Getting the sort of governing body that you describe, with a broad base of skills and knowledge, is essential. I pay tribute to the chairs and to the role they play in the area review. They are giving up a huge amount of time and showing enormous commitment to their colleges by coming to all the steering group meetings and taking part in this. Governance is critical to the quality of colleges. I agree with David that the size of a college is not the key determinant; we have some successful big colleges, but we also have some very successful small, niche colleges. Logically, you would think “How do they survive?” but actually they are doing very well.

Another point that I did not make earlier is that, although area reviews are leading to these 88 mergers—I am thinking about the area review that we are about to start in your constituency; I was talking to the two principals last week—in some areas we are simply generating collaboration short of a merger at a level that we have not seen for a long time. I happen to know that those colleges in your area have already been to see me to talk about a new form of collaboration. If that is the best solution for that area, and the data underpin that, we will support it. Merger is not the single blind answer in every case; collaboration short of a merger may well be the best solution in certain cases.

David Hughes: I want to assert that governance in the FE sector is very strong. I know that the Minister is very interested in helping to improve it, but we have a sector with very strong governance. These are independent organisations taking big business decisions over the long term, and in the vast majority of cases they deliver a very high-quality service and achieve a surplus. For many years, in the Learning and Skills Council and the Skills Funding Agency, I did a job that was not dissimilar to the FE commissioner’s: overseeing all the colleges that were getting into difficulties. It is quite striking that, despite all the funding cuts and all the competition, there are still only 20 colleges in financial difficulties. That is a very familiar number; it was not dissimilar through the noughties and into this decade. Despite all those challenges, FE and sixth-form colleges have proved incredibly adaptable and have responded really well to the funding environment.

Let me just go back to the fact that higher education is generating a surplus of more than 4% every year. The Higher Education Funding Council for England thinks that that is a problem, because it is only 4%, but FE has had a deficit in the last two years. That is not a commentary on the lack of good leadership and governance, but on the competition and the funding levels. We need to address that; otherwise, we still will not have the technical and academic education we need for young people and adults in this country. These are really important issues. It is not easy, because the economy is not doing as well as anyone wants. We are looking to the autumn statement this week and perhaps the Budget in the spring. As Lord Sainsbury said this morning, how do you properly fund technical education in this country, possibly for the first time ever?

Bill Watkin: I will respond to your comments about the growth of sixth-form colleges in the context of the economies of scale they offer, the quality of qualifications, their outcomes and their support for young people. I would also add that, with the population shift, the number of 11 to 16-year-olds is growing.

There is an interesting example of a proposed merger between a sixth-form college and an academy chain. The school, which has a large sixth-form provision, is looking to shift all of its sixth form across to the sixth-form college, and then to build capacity for 11 to 16-year-olds to serve the community. That is an example of a successful outcome of an area review recommendation. There is also the opportunity for sixth-form colleges to roll out their successful brand and open up a free school 16-to-19 provision, as happened in Pontefract.

I am pleased that the Government are reviewing the approval process for small school sixth forms. We have been invited to contribute to that review. I sincerely hope that there will be a different way of considering applications to open up schools’ sixth forms.

Professor Alison Fuller: I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of governance and efficiency—we are talking about public money, after all—but I do not want us to lose sight of the issue of efficacy and quality, which we started the session off with. The initiatives in the Bill will potentially achieve a step change in quality if we get this right. We know how much this matters, because the population performs very poorly in the OECD’s programme for the international assessment of adult competencies survey—the adult skills survey, which is administered to 27-year-olds. The added value from 15 to 27 is very weak, in terms of the age range, when you compare us to countries that have strong upper secondary and strong vocational and technical systems. The legacy effects that we are suffering as a consequence of the current system and what happened historically are playing through into the economy, life chances and wellbeing more generally. The prize is huge, but so is the challenge. I am a little concerned that an over-emphasis on governance may deflect from the really difficult thing—the quality issue.

Ian Pretty: Can I build on the discussion on mergers, which I think is a healthy one? To me, the merger is the merger. It is very easy to say, “We are all going to merge together. It’s all going to be wonderful, and the world is going to be fantastic,” but if you look at the statistics across all sectors—commercial and public—only 25% of mergers ever achieve their objectives. Post-merger integration is the most difficult thing. Part of that is that you have to understand the logic of the merger—is it a logical merger or a “shotgun” merger?—because that can have an impact. The studies show that, when they are successful, it is because of culture and cultural fit. Within the FE sector, some colleges are more likely to be able to culturally fit with another than others.

Having been on the receiving end, when I was in government, of ministerial decisions to merge, I can attest to the fact that it is difficult. The merger between Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise was an interesting experience, to say the least—I promptly walked out the door and went to the private sector.

You have to look at the logic of the merger, and then there is the whole point about post-merger integration. We have talked about whether there is enough funding, and all that sort of stuff, but do you have the right leadership? Do you have the right cultural fit that will make the merger work? Does the merger have the right objectives?

The other thing that is worth looking at is that we see regional college groups merging, and we see alternative versions of collaboration. Devon recently announced the launch of the Devon Colleges Group. The colleges have not merged together; they are collaborating. That is quite significant. You will then see that some college groups are working very well as merged entities or as groups. Hull, for example, is a successful college that has HE sections and FE sections. Warwickshire has merged a large number of colleges together, but it has not got rid of the place. It can therefore maintain community.

Going back to one of my earlier points, it is worth looking at the experience of places like Scotland. North East Scotland College has been a highly successful regional college group around Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and it has campuses that are 40 miles apart and still work—it still succeeds. It is worth looking at those models, but it is about the objectives of the merger. There must be a clear post-merger integration plan, because that is where you are going to get more success, rather than just saying, “We need to knock this together to get a smaller number of colleges.”

[Justin Tomlinson]

Q Building on Ian’s comments about the mergers, we had a similar discussion this week in the centre of the universe that is Swindon, where New College and Swindon College are considering whether to merge formally, whether to collaborate further or whether to continue with the status quo. Ian highlights that the success rate is only some 25%, and it comes down to leadership. What more can be done to engage with local employers? They could provide expertise and leadership in the next wave of governors—colleges are all chronically short of that—thereby improving the culture. Crucially, that could lead to opportunities for the students later on, because too often employers are not being engaged. What more can be done?

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jane Ellison]

That takes us back to territory we have covered. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity in putting forward his concerns, which he has expressed during debates on other amendments, but as I say, the Government are completely committed to auto-enrolment. We want to have a robust, functioning pension system, but there is also a need for complementary products.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am strongly persuaded by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Indeed, I wish I had thought of his amendment before he did, but there we are. Is the Minister not concerned by all the issues raised in the evidence sessions last week about possible complexities and indecision by people who do not know whether to invest? A commission would clarify things for everyone, including us and the Government.

[Jane Ellison]

I rather take issue with that point. Commissions and reviews by nature tend to look at the broad sweep of policy and how policies interact; they could never offer specific advice for each individual. That is why we have the various advisory services—the Money Advice Service and its successor organisation—and why the Financial Conduct Authority will consider and offer advice on each individual product. Even making the slightly optimistic assumption that every member of the population would read such a commission’s outpourings, it would be unlikely to offer individual advice. I accept the general point that such things can often offer policy guidance in the long term, but that does not alter the fact that we want individuals to take advantage of the advice services that are available and to be guided by what the FCA says about individual products.

Most of the people who gave evidence to the Committee stressed that they saw the lifetime ISA as complementary to pensions. Help to Save is in much more of a standalone category. In all cases, everyone emphasised the Government’s commitment to auto-enrolment. I bring the Committee back to the figures that I gave last week: the rate of opt-out from auto-enrolment is around 9%, which is not just lower than originally expected, but lower than the amended figure.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but does she not accept that an objective and disinterested arm’s length body such as a commission would be preferable to either private financial advice, which may involve vested interests, or Government advice? I can see strong arguments for what the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber says.

[Jane Ellison]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

Let me try to wind this debate up on a note of consensus. Where we can achieve consensus on important long-term reforms—auto-enrolment is a very good example—it is wise to do so, but we are debating apples and pears here. The debate about what is the right way to go in the pensions and savings landscape over the next several decades is separate from, albeit related to, the Bill and the two products that we want to bring in to augment the available landscape of products for individuals in this country.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I want to reinforce the point that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber made. The Turner commission was extremely valuable, because there was serious resistance from the Treasury. It was only because the Turner commission put its case so well and measured this so carefully that we got some positive change. Commissions can be extremely useful. As the Minister said, some of these issues are contentious.

[Jane Ellison]

I do not disagree that commissions can be useful; of course they can. A very good example has been cited. Neither am I arguing that we should not review things and seek, where we can with long-term things such as this, to get a degree of cross-party consensus. I referred to the review we have committed to on automatic enrolment. I am simply making the point that that debate is not relevant to the Bill. Delaying Help to Save for a year would mean people on low incomes missing out on the chance to save up to £600 in a Help to Save account and, of course, to benefit from a Government bonus.

As I say, we are debating two slightly separate issues. I think we all agree that these sorts of commissions and profound examinations of big issues often give rise to important things that achieve a degree of consensus, enabling us to move forward. However, that is not a relevant reason to delay the Bill, and that is why I reject the amendment. We heard in the evidence from StepChange that having £1,000 of rainy-day savings reduces the chance of falling into problem debt by 44%. Help to Save is a product that we have to get on with and not delay further.

I stress that we take an open approach to making pensions and savings policy and that we have approached these policies in an open and transparent way, as I have said. We will consult on the new financial guidance body later this year and, during the course of that consultation, there might well be a relevant moment to come back to some of the wider issues such as how we help individuals to make the right decisions for them. I have mentioned the automatic enrolment review, which will take place next year.

Those are better vehicles through which to have the debate we have just had and to get across some of the points that have been made, not all of which we would necessarily contest. I reject the amendment simply because it is not particularly relevant to the Bill. There is no need to delay the introduction of these two important schemes to establish a further commission.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

New clause 2, which has already been debated, is on a similar subject, and I therefore remind Members wishing to speak to new clause 4 that their remarks should cover new material, and not be a repetition of the debate we have already had.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I rise in support of the new clause. I believe that most citizens would benefit from this kind of advice. As the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said, even experts in the field of economics and finance are sometimes puzzled and at a loss when it comes to deciding what to do regarding savings and investments. The new clause is eminently sensible and would be a strong addition to the Bill. I would have liked this kind of advice when making my own investments back in the 1960s and 1970s.

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

The issue was summed up for me last week when we heard evidence and got into a rather esoteric discussion about “taxed, exempt, exempt” and “exempt, exempt, taxed”. That is just gobbledegook to the average person, including me. We absolutely need to translate that into language that normal people, with a normal level of financial literacy, can understand.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for that useful intervention, with which I strongly agree. I hesitate to say this, because I said it before, but it has been calculated that 50% of the population are not functionally numerate—they do not understand percentages and that kind of thing—so advice of this kind is vital for the ordinary citizen. I hope that the Government see fit to accept the new clause, and that we can move on.

[Jane Ellison]

I will try to observe your stricture, Mr Wilson, and not go over ground that we have already covered.

The Government do not disagree with the intention that everyone should get good advice before they take out a pension, and I certainly would not argue with the fact that for many of us, however well-informed we might like to think ourselves, such things can be confusing. The reason I will ask that the clause be withdrawn is simply that the solution it presents is not correct. Also, there are things in place to steer people, which I will touch on.

It is worth reminding the Committee about the definition of advice and guidance. “Advice” is financial advice involved in the provision of a personal recommendation for a specific product. It takes into account the wider circumstances of the person to whom the advice is given, and must be suitable for them. The definition also mentions regulated products. That is at the heart of the matter. I give a commitment that the Government will ensure that clear and accessible information about the lifetime ISA and Help to Save is available, so that potential customers can make an informed choice about whether the accounts are right for them.

Our impact assessment, which was based on a costing certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, shows that our costings do not assume that people will opt out of workplace pensions to save into a lifetime ISA. However, as I have outlined, it is ultimately the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority, not the Government, to set the regulatory framework for providers that will offer the lifetime ISA, including setting out any suitability tests that should apply. The FCA will consult on its regulatory framework shortly. It will ensure that providers are transparent to customers about the product, and that the products are sold with suitable safeguards in place.

I recognise the importance of individuals making an informed choice about whether Help to Save is right for them. Some may well be the same people who stand to benefit enormously from auto-enrolment. I have stated our commitment to that a number of times. We know that the Help to Save target audience may have less experience of financial products than the population on average. That is why we have already committed to work with interested parties to ensure that the right support and information are available, so that eligible people can decide whether the account is right for them. That will involve information and support from Government and the account provider, but we are also keen to explore a role for local organisations that are well placed to support the target population, such as local charities, advice bodies, social housing providers and the Churches, many of which have very good outreach and advice provision for people suffering from financial exclusion.

While we want to ensure that people have the information that they need, we must ensure that opening an account is as straightforward as possible. Requiring the account provider to give financial advice to every applicant makes the account application process more complex and time-consuming, and risks discouraging eligible people from opening an account. Countless studies show that the more hurdles there are to opening an account online, the more people are likely to fall away. Getting the balance right is really important.