Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for reading from the impact assessment, but I was asking whether specific groups are more likely to save than others, and I do not think the assessment provides that information.

Most importantly, however, how will the scheme help the remaining 3 million people who simply cannot afford to participate in it? I can sum up my concerns about this element of the Bill by reiterating comments made by our former shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, who stated that the scheme was

“like stealing someone’s car and then offering them a lift to the bus stop.”

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I have to confess that I am a little confused by the hon. Lady’s arguments. Is she saying that because the scheme will not target all 3.5 million people who may be eligible, the Government should do nothing? Despite the fact that it might be a partial success or that a large number of people might take up the scheme, she seems to be saying that because not everybody will take it up, this is not worth doing.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. It is important that we address this issue, but we have to be clear about how we do so. Dealing with the root causes of poverty and people’s inability to save is the first important thing that the Government need to look at, and then the second element they need to consider when rolling out the measures in the Bill is the specific groups they intend to target. If they do not target the 3.5 million people who are eligible to take part in the scheme, how will they help those who do not take part in it?

There is considerable unease about the lifetime ISA policy across the pensions industry, the trade union movement, the Office for Budget Responsibility and Select Committees of this House. The Opposition support the idea of incentivising people to save for the future, especially for retirement income, but we are concerned that the scheme could create a diversion from saving in traditional pension products, rather than being an add-on to one’s main pension plan. Even a former Pensions Minister stated that the LISA “could even destroy pensions”. The UK faces a pensions time bomb. Eleven million people are signed up to defined benefit schemes in 6,000 pension funds in the UK, but PricewaterhouseCoopers recently produced data showing that the collective deficit in those 6,000 schemes had risen by £100 billion in just one month so that it stood at £710 billion at the end of August. Earlier this year, the OECD reported that we were facing a “global pension crisis” in which a person buying an annuity today who had saved 10% of their wages into a pension for 40 years could expect just over half the earnings of someone who had saved the same amount but retired 15 years ago.

This situation is very worrying, especially when the state pension in its current form certainly cannot be relied on to plug the gap. Last week, the OBR published a report concluding that recent pensions and savings measures introduced or announced by the Government would create a £5 billion a year black hole in the public finances. The report states:

“The net effect on the public finances is positive in the early years, peaking at £2.3 billion in 2018-19 before turning negative from 2021-22—the year after our March 2016 forecast horizon…But the small net gain to the public finances from these measures over the medium-term is reversed in the long term as the net cost continues to rise, reaching £5 billion by 2034-35. Expressed as a share of GDP—a more relevant metric when considering fiscal sustainability—the net cost builds up until it reaches a steady state toward the end of the period of just over 0.1 per cent of GDP. If that steady-state effect was to continue to the end of our usual long-term projection horizon of 50 years, that seemingly small cost would add 3.7 per cent of GDP to public sector net debt.”

The report also said that these measures

“shifted incentives in a way that makes pensions saving less attractive—particularly for higher earners—and non-pension savings more attractive—often in ways that can most readily be taken up by the same higher earners.”

That is a pretty worrying assessment of the Government’s pensions and savings policy, in which the LISA will play a large part.

I am also worried about the level of assessment that the Government have carried out about the impact that the LISA could have on pension savings, and, more specifically, their auto-enrolment scheme. The Work and Pensions Committee has outlined its concerns about the threat to automatic enrolment in workplace pensions, the roll-out of which is having a great deal of success. The Committee was particularly worried about the risk of people opting out of a workplace pension in order to save in a LISA, thinking that it will be more of a beneficial pension savings product when it is not. The Committee highlighted extreme ambiguity about whether the LISA is intended to be a pension replacement.

As the House will recall, the previous Chancellor stated in his Budget speech that the LISA was for

“those under 40, many of whom have not had such a good deal from the pension system”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 966.]

That was something of an indication that this was a new-generation pensions product. On the other hand, the Department for Work and Pensions has stated that the LISA is

“not a part of the pension system but an additional flexible savings product”.

I am pleased that the Minister has, once and for all, clarified this point and stated that it is a complementary product. None the less, many witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee said that all indications so far suggested that the LISA was being interpreted as a pension product, including those from the Centre for Policy Studies, which actually developed the LISA and stated that many employees not already in a pension scheme would have to decide whether to save through a LISA or enrol in the pension scheme. Royal London stated that many people could in fact opt out of workplace pensions.

Will the Minister therefore confirm whether she has made any assessment of the impact of the LISA on automatic enrolment into workplace pensions? Will she confirm what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that people do not opt out of auto-enrolment? Will the Government mount a detailed advertising campaign, as suggested by the Select Committee, to ensure that people do not wrongly view the LISA as their main pension product? The Pensions Regulator has argued that by 2017, when the LISA is available, thousands of small and micro-businesses will not have rolled out auto-enrolment. Have the Government considered timing the LISA roll-out to coincide with the full completion of auto-enrolment to avoid the risks I have outlined?

It is acknowledged that LISAs will be successful among those who have savings elsewhere. There might simply be a case of them transferring those savings into LISAs, but will the Government provide the distributional analysis of the income groups who will specifically benefit the most? Will they confirm what impact the scheme will have on women and minority groups, especially, and therefore provide a much more detailed impact assessment, as the Work and Pensions Committee suggested? Will the Minister confirm what the Government will do to assess those groups that are not currently saving or unable to save, and what will they do to ensure that these people will be able to avail themselves of the scheme? The Select Committee has suggested that those who might benefit most from the scheme could be those who can afford to contribute to a pension scheme and deposit additional savings in a LISA to complement their retirement savings—higher earners, in other words. In these difficult economic times, Opposition Members question whether the scheme is an effective use of up to £2 billion of public funds.

Another concern is not simply that people will use the LISA as an alternative pension product, but that there will be nothing to stop them from taking the money early for other purposes, aside from as a deposit for a house. The Bill enforces a 25% charge for the early withdrawal of funds, which effectively removes the Government bonus, but people will not lose anything from their savings. That will therefore not be a significant deterrent from removing money early, so there is a significant risk for those who use the product as their sole pension income.

LISA funds may be used towards a deposit for a first home. That is not a bad thing, but the Government are failing to address the wider problems that are causing the housing crisis. There is no point having a deposit if there are no houses to buy. We need a significant private and social house building programme supported by the Government, not populist policy making. It is a shame that fewer new homes were built during the previous Parliament than under any peacetime Government since the 1920s. Labour has committed to build more than 1 million new homes over the next Parliament, and that is the level of intervention that is required of any Government who truly want to ensure that everyone can live in a decent and secure home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I hesitate to detain the House by repeating much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) in his thoughtful speech, but I particularly wanted to speak in support of the Help to Save scheme, which seems to be the Cinderella scheme in today’s debate.

Rare is the politician who understands the difference between profit and loss and the balance sheet. That is normally left to dull accountants like me. We spend a great deal of time in the House talking about people’s differential profit-and-loss accounts—the difference in earnings, and whether some members of society earn far too much in comparison with others—and we do a fair amount in trying to close that gap. However, we often fail to recognise that the solution to those inequalities in society, and the solution to the problem of poverty more generally, are first multi-generational and secondly as much about the balance sheet—the asset share that those people may have for the future—as about how much they happen to earn at the moment. Anything that enables people with low incomes, who may be on benefits or the like but who are certainly at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, to start to get the idea of saving and, in particular, investing the money saved in assets can only be applauded.

One of our problems in this country is that the collective balance sheet—the assets held both privately and publicly—is concentrated in far too few hands. Over the last 20 or so years there has been a diminution in the number of people who own shares or, indeed, have any asset base, even ownership of their houses. We need to reverse that, but sadly it has been far too low on Ministers’ agendas. A good example is the sell-off of the Post Office. The retail tranche of sales—the shares that were to be sold to members of the public in small lots—was scaled back, while the tranche that was being sold to large institutions such as Goldman Sachs was inflated. It seemed insane that a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, in particular, would do that. There was a lost opportunity to spread what was known back in the 1980s, in the heyday of a certain politician, as the “ownership society”. The former Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorks, William Hague, said that we should be a share-owning, property-owning society, and should roll back the frontiers of the state to enable that to happen.

I am keen for Help to Save to be promoted, because it allows people with very low incomes, or no incomes at all, to start thinking about their own asset bases and start saving for the future. However, I should like the Minister to consider a couple of issues. First, I do not understand why there is a cap on the amount that can be contributed. If someone earning a very low wage is able to contribute £20 a week or £20 a month year in, year out, why should we seek to limit that? Why should we not allow such people to build up a fund which they could use in the future, possibly passing it on to their children, who might then decide to do the same? Secondly, £50 seems a rather small amount to me, particularly for someone who is starting to build up an amount and getting into the spirit of saving. Thirdly, especially in the current interest-rate environment, requiring people to hold their savings in cash strikes me as self-defeating. Allowing them to go to their banks and buy, for instance, shares in Marks & Spencer or Royal Bank of Scotland—when, hopefully, they become available—would give them the idea that they could benefit from the country’s asset base.

It is worth noting that, when it comes to the lump sums that people want to accumulate over their lives, their aspirations are often quite modest. Many years ago a great friend of mine who works in television was devising a new quiz show, and wanted to establish what prize money he should offer so that he could deal with the show’s finances. A survey was conducted, and people in the United Kingdom were asked what amount constituted “change your life money”. In this age of the lottery, my friend thought that the answer would be hundreds of thousands of pounds, but in fact it was just over £6,000. That is what the vast bulk of British people thought was “change your life money” which would give them the chance to start to build for the future.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

The Money Advice Service recently found that 21 million families had less than £500 in savings. What does my hon. Friend think about the lack of financial literacy and money management skills among people who do not have the techniques and the basic understanding that would enable them to manage their personal finances?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend has touched on an interesting issue. What she has said reflects one of the observations made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Over the past three or four decades people have, perhaps, been infantilised in respect of the financial choices that they make, and politicians in the House of Commons may have sought to make their choices for them. Personally, I would like the opportunity to decide between a lifetime ISA, a pension and a normal ISA, for instance, but then I am a chartered accountant of moderate skill—deeply moderate; I resigned on the day I qualified for exactly that reason—but I recognise that plenty of people feel confused and are unable to do so. We have taken the power away from them over the years, and we must start to reverse that. We must either put choice back into their hands, or educate them so that they can make those choices in the future. The financial world is becoming ever more complicated, and if people are to do well out of it—particularly those on lower incomes—they will need to have that kind of knowledge.

Another reason why people should take an interest in acquiring assets rather than the mere ins and outs of their monthly incomes is the fact that a number have missed out, recently in particular, on what could have been a big upswing in their wealth. Brexit has seen a massive rise in the stock market, and anyone who has had stocks and shares over the last couple of months will have done extremely well. Similarly, the housing market has risen prodigiously over the last three or four years.

[Ian Blackford]

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there has been a massive 16% decline in the value of sterling over the last couple of months? Moreover, the fact that the market has risen as much as it has is due, quite simply, to the overseas earnings of United Kingdom companies. It is not that the world thinks the United Kingdom has become a more investable case; indeed, some would argue that it has become a basket case.

[Kit Malthouse]

I entirely agree that overseas earnings are rising. That is why the stock market has increased so significantly, and I think that is a good thing. I am proud to say that I voted “out”. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks should be the level of the pound, but I think it should be at a level that increases our overseas earnings, means that people will re-shore manufacturing—because it is now more expensive for goods to be made overseas—and helps our exporters. I cannot see that that is anything other than beneficial for a country that is carrying a massive current account deficit.

The point that I am trying to make, however, is that 40 or perhaps 30 years ago many more people were investing in the stock market by buying shares in British Gas and all the privatised industries, and those people would have been benefiting from the present upswing. I am proud to ask my postman how his shares are doing every time I see him, and I should like to be able to say the same to most people on low incomes.

[Ian Blackford]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his postman how much his holiday will cost him next year. There is a real problem for the United Kingdom, which is that inflation is now going to increase. We have already seen the impact of the likes of Unilever seeking to pass on 10% price increases. At a time when wage growth in the United Kingdom is limited, we have choked off next year’s consumption. That is the effect of Brexit. This is not about wealth; it is about an economy that has been damaged by the Brexiters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I disagree with him. I hesitate to get into a bit of economic argy-bargy in this debate—I was hoping to keep my comments short—but inflation is currently running at 0.6%, and as a result we have extremely low interest rates. The Bank of England’s target is 2%. I am pleased that the low pound may help it to get to that level because there is no doubt that low inflation, or a deflationary environment in real terms, is extremely damaging to the economy. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the effect he desires of the drop in the pound has happened: my wife and I decided just this week that this February half-term we would go to Scotland on holiday rather than overseas. We would like to explore the glorious land of his birth. I hope that more and more British consumers will do the same. We may even see the rejuvenation of the tourism industry in lovely places such as Blackpool.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman has set out three concerns, if I remember rightly, about Help to Save. I wonder whether he shares my view and that of the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) that the Government need to do more to explain why they think there should be a two-year qualifying period for the Government bonus for Help to Save, as opposed to just 12 months.

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government should look at exactly that. The barriers to saving that are in the way of people on low incomes should be removed as much as possible. I like his suggestion that people should be able opt to save out of their payroll—that employers should make the deduction. I like anything that makes it painless. The Government opt for PAYE because it takes our taxes away from us painlessly; we do not actually have to give them over. Doing the same with savings would be a good idea.

Throughout my life, my granny, until she sadly died when she was 94, put £5 every month in a post office savings account for me. She gave the savings to me on my 21st birthday. I have always been grateful for that money. I still have it sitting in that savings account. I hope and believe that I will be able to pass it on to my three children as a sign of what can be done by putting £5 away every month—a sign of the change that is possible from the first generation, from the back streets of Harrogate, to me now as a Member of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on his comments, particularly those about the Help to Save product the Government are introducing. He talked about the Government looking at the role of credit unions and whether it would be possible to use payroll. It would be helpful if the Ministers, whom I welcome to the Chamber, commented on those matters, as well as some of the IFS criticisms and the very helpful Library briefing.

I want to focus on the Government’s lifetime ISA. We should not question its intentions. Its simple aim is to increase savings among the young and to help more people on to the housing ladder, and surely none of us can have any objection to that in principle. The difficulty is that we do not, of course, start with a blank sheet of paper, and adding yet more products to the already complicated savings landscape risks bringing unintended consequences. I want to focus on that risk.

As the Library briefing rather coyly puts it, over the past 25 years, a string of largely tax-based savings incentive schemes has been brought in under different Governments. Some Members will remember the stakeholder scheme, yet not many will perhaps now remember personal equity plans, tax-exempt special savings accounts, child trust funds—they ceased not that long ago—or indeed the saving gateway, which was never rolled out nationally. When we consider the lifetime ISA and what it is proposed that it will achieve, we must also bear in mind what other savings products exist.

Under the general heading of “savings” I include pensions; they are simply a particular form of savings designed primarily to provide people with adequate income in retirement. Of course as we live ever longer, the value of having those savings, lasting well beyond an age to which people were expected to live not long ago, becomes more important. The Government have a crucial role to play as the body that will prop up all or any of us when we run out of savings. I want to focus on a couple of things within the product range of savings and the potential unintended consequences of this Bill.

The LISA was introduced in this year’s Budget after the Chancellor said that it was clear there was no consensus on the future development of pensions. But in a sense he revealed his own hand by increasing the ISA limit and proposing the introduction of the lifetime ISA. This showed the Treasury’s direction of travel very clearly. It is no surprise that the Centre for Policy Studies has welcomed this ISA since, it says, it is similar to a proposal made in the past. Indeed, Michael Johnson at the CPS has been advocating the end of pensions for a long time. I have described him as the Guy Fawkes of the pensions industry—he would love to blow the whole thing up tomorrow if he could. The lifetime ISA was just one of his steps towards that goal, with a workplace ISA coming in next.

That is where some of the problems start. The Chancellor’s main underlying argument for introducing the LISA was that younger people did not understand pensions—that they were far too complicated and were not popular and therefore we needed to use the well-known brand of the ISA. I have clashed many times with the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—mostly happily—on pensions issues. His contributions are normally way over the top, as, unsurprisingly, they were again this evening. However, he was right to use the quotation in the Association of British Insurers briefing, demonstrating that, interestingly, the opt-out rates in auto-enrolment among the under-30s have been the lowest of all age groups. That arguably suggests that younger people do not necessarily find pensions complicated when they are provided with a solution in the workplace into which they, their employer and the Government can all contribute and the paperwork is easy. So pensions do not have to be any more complex than any other form of savings, but what makes the whole sector more complicated is the constant temptation of successive Chancellors to act as product designer for the industry and introduce yet more different products.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am a little puzzled by my hon. Friend’s use of the statistic that the under-30s have the lowest opt-out rate. The under-30s will of course become the over-30s and the over-40s, and they might well opt out at that point. Their continuing to opt in at this early stage, when they might not have quite so much pressure on their wage packet, is not necessarily indicative of what they will do in the future.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but he should bear in mind the fact that opt-out rates were expected to be 25% and are averaging 9% so far. The Government’s expectations about opt-out rates have therefore, happily, been proved wrong. He is right to say that the under-30s will become the over-30s, but we should all be trying to encourage those people to stay in and build up their savings through the pensions scheme, rather than introducing a competitive product that could, for various marketing reasons, seem more attractive and therefore divert people of all ages from the good and noble cause, which I think he supports, of building up more savings for their retirement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right; raising the UK’s productivity is the long-term challenge of our economy, and infrastructure investment is one of the ways we do that. I draw attention to another point: the success of Cambridge today, not only as a centre of academic excellence but as an innovation hub of global importance, has arisen because of the very foresighted decision of Cambridge City Council many years ago to allow development around the city and the creation of the Cambridge business park, which is now a world magnet for investment.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the Chancellor on his ascension. One of the key flows of capital that is likely to increase post-Brexit is the £300 million or so that is invested every year in gilts by those seeking a UK investor visa. This is of little productive value to the UK economy. I wrote to the previous Treasury team suggesting that this money would be better invested in drug discovery but, amazingly, I got the brush-off. May I impose myself upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for a meeting to explain the merits of requiring these people to invest in the productive part of the UK economy?

[Mr Hammond]

I anticipate that there will be a need to fund UK Government gilt issuance for the foreseeable future, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I would be happy to discuss it with him.

Surplus Target and Corporation Tax

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

When it comes to annoying our European partners, I do not think this is going to be the thing that tips the balance after the last couple of weeks. Ireland is a member of the EU and has a 12.5% corporation tax rate. When it comes to investment in the north and the midlands, I am very much open to what further steps we can take. I do not pretend that we have done everything possible; I think there is more we are going to have to do, and all of us collectively—particularly those who represent constituencies in the north and the midlands—need to focus on what we can do to make sure that people feel more enfranchised and connected with this country’s economic success.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The Brexit vote was always going to require a Treasury response so I am pleased the Chancellor has produced one, but, rather than concentrate on the profit and loss, I wonder if he would care to look more at the balance sheet and consider measures to lift or relieve some of the constraints on the operational liquidity of capital in the economy. Our capital base is fundamental to our growth, and taxes and regulations on the operation of capital are significant constraints. So will the Chancellor look at investment allowances, tax breaks on starting new businesses and capital gains tax, in the hope that we can maintain a nice liquid market for capital investment in the UK?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right to say that, while taxes on business profits are important, capital taxes are also vital to stimulating investment. That is why in the Budget we reduced capital gains tax—and, with hindsight, that is an even more sensible move than I thought it was at the time. I am always ready to consider further investment allowances, and we have very successful allowances such as the enterprise investment scheme. Of course, the balance has always got to be between simplification and simplicity of the tax system and new allowances, and sometimes people call on me in the same breath to do both things—not my hon. Friend, because he is very clear in his thinking. We have got those allowances, but reducing headline rates is generally the better approach.

UK Economy

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, but I must press on for a while.

It is important to recognise that economic decline and regional inequality, and the deep-rooted alienation and despair that they have produced, contributed to the fact that so many people voted to leave the EU. Some fear that a shock to business investment spending would help to push the entire economy into another recession. Again, I call for a fresh programme of Government investment to produce shovel-ready projects, especially in the areas that have been hardest hit by long-term economic decline.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I have to give my hon. Friend his due; he chances his arm. I am sure that there is a need for investment—selective investment—in aviation.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

We are short of time and a lot of Members wish to speak.

Whenever aviation expansion takes place, it will be judged on the criteria that the Labour party has set, which include the environmental impact and the impact on the wider economy. We await the proposals from the Government and we will then take our decision.

The referendum vote has forced a debate on the best course for our economy and for economic policy. It is unlikely that a simple return to business as usual will be possible or even desirable, but there are immediate steps that can be taken to calm market volatility and to limit the shock to demand. It is incumbent on the Government to take those necessary measures and Labour, in the national interest, will support measures intended to stabilise the economy when they protect households and businesses.

On monetary policy, of course authority rests with the Bank of England to intervene to preserve the stability of banks and the wider economy. Governor Mark Carney’s Friday morning statement was important in helping to stabilise the immediate situation. However, some interventions by the Bank will require authorisation from the Government. To ensure the success of those interventions, it will be helpful if the House is kept as fully informed as practicable of those authorisations, with regular updates.

On fiscal policy, with the expected slump in demand, the Government’s present fiscal charter is, to say the least, increasingly anachronistic. With the Chancellor having missed two of his three targets—on debt and on the welfare cap—he will now have to suspend the deficit target. The charter’s restriction on investment spending in particular is impossible to defend. For the regions, a squeeze on Government investment could be especially damaging.

Last year—this was raised earlier at Question Time— over £10 billion was provided in regional development funding by the EU. That was concentrated on our most deprived regions and places that needed it the most. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that essential funding will now be made good? What structures are being put in place to liaise with elected mayors, local government leaders and regional bodies to address the loss of EU funds?

The UK currently holds a 16% stake in the European Investment Bank, which last year disbursed a record £6 billion in investment for the UK. That includes £l billion for social housing. What steps are the Government taking to maintain current programme funding? What plans do the Government have for the UK’s stake in the European Investment Bank?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

The stability of our financial institutions is there for people to see. It has been assured by our regulators. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the market is making new assessments about the future earnings of banks, yes, that is so, and it is quite striking that it is banks that face the UK economy that have seen the sharp falls in their share prices, not banks that face the European and international economy. We have to be realistic: markets—free markets—are going to make those kinds of adjustments. We have seen those—the shadow Chancellor noted them—but it is striking that there has been the largest one-day fall against the dollar on record for our pound sterling. Equity markets, particularly the FTSE 250—which largely comprises companies that, again, face the UK domestic market—fell by 14%, and they are now 9% below their level. The particular sectors that have been affected are British retail banking, house building and short-haul airlines, some of which have seen their share price fall by more than 40%.

[Kit Malthouse]

Notwithstanding what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, will he acknowledge the benefits of a weaker exchange rate? For a country that is running a large trade deficit, having a significantly weaker exchange rate will make a large difference, particularly to exporters, and it means that we are more likely now to avoid deflation in the economy, which not a few months ago people were forecasting was likely to hit us.

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend that a free-floating currency is a shock-absorber that we have the benefit of. We do not have a fixed exchange rate, and of course we are not part of a single currency, so the currency can take some of the strain, and that is reflected in the currency market.

The only thing I would caution my hon. Friend on is this: in 2008 we saw a sharp fall in sterling, and that was sustained, but it did not lead to the boost in exports that people expected at that point. That was partly because other markets, including European markets, were depressed, but, as we came to discover, it was also the case that integrated supply chains these days are more international. For example, car exporters might benefit from the fall in the currency in terms of the price they sell their cars for, but they will have imported parts and will have seen import prices go up. Unfortunately retailers are also warning us that prices in supermarkets, for example, may well now rise because of the fall in the currency, but we will wait and see.

Of course the other challenge we face is from the credit rating agencies—not that everything they say is gospel. Unfortunately, we lost our triple-A rating with Standard & Poor’s and were downgraded two notches a few days ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

That is absolutely correct. The FTSE 250 is far more exposed to the domestic market. Whether the index moves up or down slightly at any given time, the key point is that the exposure to the UK market and the lack of confidence at the moment are precisely what is driving that uncertainty.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, I will not give way at the moment.

I was pointing out that the fall in the pound was twice that in 1992. By Monday the 27th, it fell another 2%, to $1.32—a three-decade low. [Interruption.] There are mutterings from people who want everything to be fine. We have had a near three decade low in the pound because of the actions taken by the Brexit campaign, which failed to have a plan to deal with this eventuality—that is the crux of the matter. The value of the pound against the euro fell almost 6% on Friday the 24th, and it fell again on Monday the 27th.

Most alarming, given the stock placed on it, was that the UK lost its triple A credit rating from Standard & Poor’s following the Brexit vote. Standard & Poor’s said the referendum result could lead to a

“deterioration of the UK’s economic performance, including its large financial services sector”.

It was the first time that Standard & Poor’s had downgraded a triple A-rated sovereign by two notches in one go. On Friday the 24th, Moody’s cut the credit outlook from stable to negative, saying the result could lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty. By changing its outlook to negative, it has warned that the UK’s Aa1 rating is also at risk of being lowered, and with that, obviously, comes the risk of higher borrowing costs.

And that is before we get to the real world and job security. The Institute of Directors surveyed 1,000 of its members. It found that a quarter plan to freeze recruitment. Two thirds said the vote was negative for their business. The BBC has reported that HSBC plans to move up to 1,000 staff who process payments in euros from London to Paris. Others are deeply concerned about the loss of passporting arrangements, which mean that firms do not have to have different authorisations for individuals in individual countries. These are very real concerns, but they are being whitewashed and brushed over by those who are desperate to leave, because of the absence of a plan to deal with issues that should have been considered in advance.

[Stewart Hosie]

If the pound falls by twice as much as its record fall ever, I suppose that no one sensible should describe that as minor, normal or run of the mill. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

With regard to the indices, it is true, as I said, that the FTSE 100 has pretty much bounced back to its pre-referendum level, as of earlier today. The FTSE 250 is not yet back to the position it was in on Monday 27 June. The pound versus dollar is unchanged since its collapse and is bouncing along the bottom. The pound versus the euro is unchanged since the fall and is bouncing along the bottom. The real concern—

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

No, no.

The real concern is that this uncertainty will last for a very long time, not least because of the preposterous decision by those advocating Brexit not even to try to invoke the article 50 negotiations immediately—not so much a man without a plan as a campaign without a clue.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

No, I am not going to give way.

We do know, though, that many of the underlying problems are deep rooted and long term. One of the arguments posited by the out campaign was that money currently going to the EU could be spent here at home. We do not need to leave the EU to reverse the decision to convert innovation funding from grants to loans in order to support new product development. We do not need to leave the EU to reverse the cuts to export support in order to help businesses sell more overseas. We do not need to leave the EU to abandon an economic plan to cut £40 billion more than is necessary to run a balanced current account. We do not need to end our membership of the EU to do these things; we do need an end to austerity.

The other argument that the Brexit campaigners posited was that we need to “take back control”, in their words, in order to achieve improvements in all the economic metrics. The problem with that is that countries within the EU are doing better on every single measure. Malta and the Czech Republic have lower unemployment. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have higher employment. Ireland has higher GDP growth. Estonia and Bulgaria have lower debt-to-GDP ratios. In terms of the key issue of productivity—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman has a fantastic sense of humour himself, as does his party.

If we had boarded that tube train and gone down that route, our Prime Minister would have been in post for years to come, and our stock market, our economic confidence and our currency would have strengthened. We would not have put permanently to bed but would have very strongly put to one side the two big constitutional issues of Europe and Scotland that have bedevilled our politics for so long. Instead, we have instability again.

We have to recognise that if we had remained, we would have had a very strong position, rather than all this uncertainty and weakness. For me, whatever arrangements are negotiated for the future, they must compensate for that and restore the strengths and assets that we had, not least the fact that British has historically been seen as a beacon of trust. It has been seen as a country into which people would put their life savings, and there is a profound sense around the world that we have respect for the rule of law, and that we are stable, sound and all the rest of it. At the moment, one could forgive the world for thinking that that was not the case, as certainly seems to be true in other European countries.

How do we restore those strengths? First and foremost, when we enter into negotiations, we have to decide on the principles—just as with a Bill, we have a Second Reading debate about its principles—and we need to decide on the principles of the negotiations we will have with our European partners and on the fundamentals about how we go forwards. I want to focus on three key points.

The first point is openness, to which I referred earlier. To me, one of the most extraordinary comments during the referendum was when, after concerns were raised about steel, a key figure in the leave campaign said that if we left the EU, we could unilaterally impose tariffs on Chinese steel. There may be a strong case for doing so, but that betrayed the fact that when the argument becomes nationalistic, particularly economically nationalistic, there is inevitably a threat of protectionism. We have heard many times about how Britain would negotiate good trade arrangements, and about how, since we have deficits with the EU, its members will want to trade with us—after all, look at how many cars we buy from them. Implicitly, the point was therefore that if they did not want to trade with us, we would consider protectionism.

[Kit Malthouse]

I realise that my hon. Friend and I were on different sides of the argument, but does he recognise that the EU is a protectionist bloc? The EU is a common tariff area whose members collectively impose significant tariffs on other parts of the world, some of which are impoverished third world nations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Our intention is to use the principles of the Barnett formula to make sure that the devolved Administrations, not only in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland, do get the resources they need. Of course we would urge them then to spend those resources on training, but that is ultimately a matter for them and the people to whom they are accountable.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Given the importance of family investment in start-up businesses, particularly science and technology businesses, where a leap of faith is often required, will the Chancellor, in the Budget, consider lifting the restrictions on family investment under the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme, so that mum and dad can invest alongside everybody else on the same terms?

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to take that as a Budget representation. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that if he turns up on Budget day, he will see my response to it. The SEIS and EIS have been enormously successful. We have to make sure that the rules are tight enough so that they are supporting the kind of entrepreneurial activity we want, rather than being used as a vehicle for tax avoidance. I think we have got the balance right so far, but I am aware of good, positive proposals that people have put forward to improve it.

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is often forgotten that companies do not actually pay tax. All they do is collect their tax on behalf of the Government from their customers and pass it on. If we go into the Tea Room and buy a Mars bar or whatever, we pay the cost not only of the ingredients, the machines and the capital deployed by the company, but of the corporation tax, the duty, the VAT and indeed national insurance as part of the price. Over the last 30 years that I have been in business, it has certainly been the case that the moving parts in running a business have become ever more complex, and tax in the general sense has occupied ever more time of the business person, particularly those who run small businesses. Anything that injects an element of certainty into the tax horizon for business is therefore extremely welcome, particularly at a time when lots of other things are changing for small businesses. The introduction of reforms in pensions, particularly auto-enrolment, changes to the living wage and other employment regulations create an atmosphere in which running a business feels very much like a game of 3-D chess.

We can look around the world at tax regimes for business where stability and lack of change have been a constant for some time and see success, irrespective of the rates. If we look at the United States, corporation taxes are actually quite high in comparison with this country—pleasingly—but also with the rest of the world. The US economy does extremely well, largely because tax rates have not changed for decades. The US has elected for stability and a lack of change to the relative level of the rate because it knows that one of the things most valued by businesses is certainty. Whenever people are starting or running a business, they spend their entire lives forecasting what the world is going to look like over the next two or three years. When people do that, they know that the day after the forecast, it will be wrong because of the many different moving parts, as I said. One area that business should be able to rely on for some certainty and stability is government. So the introduction of the Bill, which provides a four-and-a-half or five-year time horizon on national insurance, is extremely welcome.

There are people who might say that this is a gimmick, but much of what we do in the House is about signals. Economics is all about psychology and the individual choices that people make.

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

The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for certainty and explains why he believes that the Bill will give certainty to small and medium-sized enterprises. If certainty is so important, why have this Government removed the climate change levy exemption for many SMEs?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that question next time he appears. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would support me in urging those on the Treasury Bench generally to provide a level of certainty and in many ways to be slower about their decisions.

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. The question of certainty has been raised and eloquently explained by him. Does he agree that, when Members question certainty, they should ask themselves why they ask for referendums on whether they should be part of the United Kingdom, which surely breeds uncertainty?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend has made a strong point. During the debate on the referendum concerning our possible divorce as nations, businesses piped up very loudly about what was likely to be a very uncertain horizon for them on the far side of the debate. The majority opted for the status quo, because a bird in the hand was worth God knows what in the bush.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was certainly worth two Lords in the Lords.

In fact, the uncertainty has arisen as a result of our lack of independence. Scotland lost powers under the Energy Act 2013. The Government made a lot of promises on that. Now we are to lose the renewable energy obligation in Scotland because of the uncertainty caused by our losing the referendum. I wanted to put that on record, and to give the hon. Gentleman a bit of clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

These things always involve a balance. A point that I have often made in another elected chamber—this is one of the things that dismays me a little—is that under the last Government we became used to having, effectively, two Budgets a year. There were two points during the year at which businesses, and indeed everyone else, had to hold their breath because there might be some change in the fiscal environment. Pleasingly, however, over the last four or five years, that change has been generally beneficial. The direction of travel of the United Kingdom has been towards a lower-tax environment for business, and we have seen the benefit of that in the jobs market and the growth of the economy over the last few years.

[Mark Spencer]

Does my hon. Friend agree that taking on staff constitutes a large responsibility for employers? They know that they are responsible not only for their employees’ health and safety, but for their future financial security, because the employees’ mortgages depend on their careers in the business. Anything that the Government can do to remove a barrier from the ability to employ someone has to be welcomed.

[Kit Malthouse]

That is exactly the point that I am making. Businesses are much more likely to employ people if they have some certainty about the overall cost of employment—not just wages, but on-costs such as expenses. Within that, national insurance is a very significant cost, and providing an element of certainty over the next four or five years is therefore extremely important.

Let me now return to a point that I was making earlier about signals. When I was Deputy Mayor for business and enterprise at City Hall, a position that I occupied for three and a half years, I was in charge of foreign direct investment. My job was to go around the world encouraging people to come and invest in London and the south-east. One of the things I learnt from that experience was that signals from City Hall about what we were willing to do, and how welcoming we were likely to be to particular companies, individuals or investors, was critical to whether they wanted to come here. In that context, an element of certainty and predictability, not just political and legal—we are seen to have that around the world—but fiscal, was absolutely vital

[Rehman Chishti]

Of course I agree with what my hon. Friend says about certainty and clarity. Does he not think that the shadow Minister’s argument—that when a promise has been made, there is no need to legislate for it—is quite contradictory? The Blair Government passed more legislation than any other Government: they passed 26,849 pieces of legislation. Labour cannot have one rule in government and another in opposition. Clarity is the way forward.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It must be said that the Brown years injected an enormous sense of uncertainty into business. Although, for some of that period, we were benefiting from what could be described as a global boom, businesses existed in an environment, and on a battlefield, that was for ever changing. Anything that calms down such situations, and makes decision making much more predictable, is key.

That is particularly important when it comes to foreign direct investment. When businesses want to locate large manufacturing plants that are both capital and labour-intensive, employment taxation and employment law are the two biggest drivers of whether they decide to come to the UK. The Bill will make employment taxation much more predictable, and seen to be predictable, for the next five years, and not just on the say of a “here today, gone tomorrow politician”—was it John Nott who objected to being so described? The facts will be there on paper, in black and white, and the fact that they can be relied on will make a big difference to foreign direct investment decisions.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I applaud what my hon. Friend has said about stability and certainty in the business community, especially in relation to foreign direct investment. During Business questions this morning, I mentioned the aerospace growth partnership. The aerospace sector has longer product cycles than other sectors. It is important for us to support such sectors, and for firms investing in aerospace to have a long period of certainty. The UK’s aerospace sector is the second largest sector in the world, and we are keen to support it.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. Some of the sectors that are the most critical to the UK’s future success—aerospace, technology and life science, in which I have a particular interest—are international businesses that make huge bets on countries on a regular but long-term basis. Some predictability is therefore absolutely key.

My final point is about inflation. We are living in a financial atmosphere in which inflation will be of concern over the next five to 10 years, and we need to be careful to ensure that it does not get out of hand. We have been extremely successful in doing that so far. As I have said, national insurance forms a large part of prices. The Government—any Government—must bear in mind that if taxes rise, so do prices, over time. By injecting an element of freeze into the national insurance bill, we are also doing our bit to relieve whatever inflationary pressures may be generated in the economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about inflation as if it were the danger, but the real danger at the moment is deflation. Japan has been struggling with deflation for a decade and more. There is a serious problem across the world caused by prices rising below the threshold deemed appropriate by central banks, especially in Britain, and in America, the threat of rising interest rates is terrifying the world that we may be plunged into another economic crisis. It is deflation that is the problem; inflation is not even on the horizon.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman may have a point at the current time, but some of us are of an age to remember the destruction that was wreaked on the last generation by inflation. My grandparents’ pensions were destroyed by it. I hope he will forgive me for having an atavistic fear of it, a fear that it may, at any point, appear over the horizon. Anything that we can do to defray that fear, either now or in the future, will be welcome.

I support the Bill. I think that it is a good idea. I will vote for it first because of the certainty that it will bring for business, secondly because of the international signal that it will send, and thirdly because I think that anything we can do to bear down on any inflation, either now or in the future, will be extremely welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I am saying that it would be perfectly reasonable to consider that, rather than pre-committing in the way that the Bill is doing. That seems to be common sense.

It is surprising that the Treasury thinks that it can simply continue to switch off policy levers and that that is an intelligent way of carrying on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South has said, commentators including the Financial Times and PricewaterhouseCoopers have pointed out that this measure will force the Government into a more difficult and tricky situation. The position will become more constrained, and it will be more difficult to take sensible decisions on raising money. The Bill will put more pressure on the Government to cut public spending.

[Kit Malthouse]

I think I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support earlier. That was kind of her. Would she accept that one of the strengths of having these measures embedded in legislation is that if a future Chancellor were to decide that he or she wanted to raise national insurance rates, an element of delay would be injected into the proceedings by dint of the repeal process? That would give businesses some months—and possibly a year or even longer, if the House were so to decide—in which to adjust to what would otherwise have been a sudden decision.

[Helen Goodman]

Well, it might or it might not, depending on the circumstances.

This quest for certainty is quite reasonable in regard to small businesses—