Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Ian Swales

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I confess that I wholeheartedly support the Treasury’s belief in the principle of freedom to which my hon. Friend refers. It is right that we as Conservatives trust those who have worked hard and saved throughout their adult life to make their own decisions on their savings. Nevertheless, we must accept that the generous tax relief that attaches to private pension savings has always been predicated on the basis that, by providing for their old age, pension savers will not be a drain on the state. It will become ever more difficult to justify reliefs at the generous levels we have all been used to over the past few decades if the compulsion that goes with annuities or restrictions on access to savings is consigned to history.

I am also pleased that the coalition has consulted a little more widely on these plans, albeit somewhat belatedly. One hopes that some technical issues will be ironed out, but I wanted at this stage to make some more general observations. The Government have been commendably vigorous in reforming the pensions system since 2010. As the Minister pointed out, we are already on the third pensions Bill and he already has another in his sights. Eligibility for a state pension will only kick in at a later age. That has to be the right move forward. The earnings-related element of the pension has been abolished. We now have a system of automatic enrolment for employees. Many of these reforms have been undertaken for one simple reason: we could not go on as we had. Our understanding of retirement has changed beyond all recognition and comprehension since the state pension was introduced in 1909. Life expectancy then was lower, so there was no point in continuing the pretence that the state could adequately sustain decent incomes for generations that will now live for 20 or 30 years after retirement.

If the emphasis is now firmly on self-reliance and the ever greater involvement of private providers, the most crucial ingredient will be trust. If the law is essentially to compel citizens via auto-enrolment to hand over an unspent surplus of their hard-earned cash to what they may regard as the unqualified or incompetent, there is little incentive for anyone to save. Central to addressing all this must be a pensions industry in which there is universal public confidence and which willingly recognises a collective responsibility. As we know, we are a hell of a long way from that point. The regulator, encouraged by the Government, now needs urgently to engender a culture among the major institutions in the sector akin to that prevailing among the leading banks during the 1970s.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the move to individualism will potentially shoot away the concept behind annuities, which effectively provide group insurance for life expectancy? Therefore, is he concerned about annuities having a bad name? Will the industry get its act together to provide the right kind of insurance products to substitute for annuities?

[Mark Field]

I do share some of those concerns. I agreed to a certain extent with the Opposition spokesman’s points about the tension that exists. There is a tension, perhaps an understandable tension, between the drive towards individualism, which as a Conservative I support, and elements of the collective nature of pensions that have hitherto been in place.

Unfortunately it is clear that confidence in the pensions industry has not recovered after the debacle of Equitable Life, with investment in a residential property seen as the more reliable bet to all too many of those planning their retirement. That applies to virtually everyone of my generation and I suspect to many younger voters, too.

If we are to reduce reliance on the state, we might also reflect on the sobering fact that, earlier this year, the Financial Conduct Authority found the average pension pot to be a mere £17,700. For all the promotion of pensions, no amount of legislation will overcome the fact that far too many of our fellow countrymen are too poor to save adequately for their retirement. I fear that will only become truer for younger generations who find an ever-increasing portion of salary dedicated to servicing high rents or mortgages based on inflated house prices.

I should like to touch on coherence across Government pensions policy, which was referred to earlier by the Opposition. On the one hand, the Government are trying to create a new regime which places much greater trust in the individual to manage their own retirement funds, yet on the other their new system of automatic enrolment for employees suggests they have limited faith—let us put it that way—that people will take sufficient responsibility for saving in the years preceding their retirement. Similarly, while there is an implicit understanding that the state will no longer be able to provide citizens with adequate incomes in retirement, the Government have made a costly commitment to the so-called “triple lock” which guarantees that the state pension will increase in line with wages, prices or 2.5%, whichever happens in any one year to be highest.

In short, the messages to the electorate on pensions remain mixed to the point of confusion. I am not being critical of the Government in this regard, because this is a very complicated area and there are those almost inherent tensions in the pensions system which have been referred to earlier, but it would be helpful if the Minister restated in his winding-up speech the basic principles that underpin Government thinking in this vital area.

As I have suggested, as a Conservative I instinctively welcome the notion that people who have saved and planned their finances carefully should be free to spend their retirement funds as they see fit. It is exciting to see the Treasury and the DWP inject the principles of trust and self-responsibility back into the heart of Government policy. Nevertheless, it would also be wise for the Government to examine whether such policies alleviate or potentially increase the burden on the state.

In this regard, I ask the Minister what examination he has conducted into the system in Australia. Some 20 years ago, the Government there made similar decisions to those now being made here on annuities. However, I understand that the Australian Government are now considering reversing that decision after their Murray review, examining their financial system, found that roughly half of those retiring take money out as a lump sum with a quarter of that group exhausting their funds by the age of 70. In addition, many had got themselves into debt in the years preceding retirement in anticipation of using the lump sum on retirement to pay off those accumulated debts, rather than using it for living expenses in retirement. What safeguards do we have in place to avoid such an undesirable outcome?

Turning to guidance, I have received constituency representations from an industry specialist who is concerned that the new pensions “guidance guarantee” has the potential to create widespread confusion among consumers and damage to regulated financial advisers. The Treasury has announced that under the new regime everyone will be provided with free guidance from bodies such as the Pensions Advisory Service and the Money Advice Service. The cost of this will apparently be borne by a levy on regulated firms. Not only will the new levy add cost to the operations of independent financial advisers, but they will essentially be funding a service that stands to undermine their own offering since many customers will now take the view that it is not worth paying for that independent advice. This in itself is not a problem for the consumer. However, financial advisers currently already operate in a very strict regulatory environment, whereas the guidance guarantee will set out generic options, such as whether an individual should consider an annuity or income drawdown, rather than specific recommendations. There is a danger, therefore, that many pensioners will see broad guidance as an inexpensive substitute for tailored, quality advice. My correspondent therefore recommends either that the Government’s delivery partners remove any suggestion that they will be providing advice rather than simply general guidance, or else that policy is delivered through regulated, private sector firms, perhaps through a voucher system, which would offer consumers the kind of helpful, impartial and personalised advice that they need.

Finally, I should like to say a few words on unintended consequences. It has been clear for some time that the annuity system was not designed to fund the kind of long retirements we have seen as a result of improved life expectancies. However, there are implications for the health of the wider economy if we turn our backs on annuities in ever greater numbers. The vast majority of annuity money is invested in bonds, a crucial source of alternative finance for businesses beyond the traditional banking system. This helps spread risk in the system by ensuring that problems in the banking system, such as those we saw emerge in 2008, do not completely turn off the tap of finance to the wider economy. Currently, those saving in defined-contribution pension schemes buy approximately £11 billion of annuities per annum, with around £7 billion flowing to firms through corporate bond purchases as a result. What consideration has the Minister given to a collapse in such purchases should there be a sudden drop in the sale of annuities, which might well happen as a result of these changes? While I expect this will be offset in part by a fresh flow of money from those pensioners who decide to reinvest their lump sums, this cannot be guaranteed and, as I have suggested, my fear is that, without sufficient trust in the markets, property and the rental income received from it will prove a very attractive destination for this cash. An unbalancing of the property market as a result would not be a desirable outcome of these changes.

While I should appreciate the Minister’s response to all the issues I have raised today, I would like to finish my contribution by reiterating my admiration for the boldness of the coalition in trying to tackle a pensions system that clearly is not functioning well for the majority of our fellow Britons.

Finance Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Ian Swales

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

I do not see VAT mentioned in the new clause. I was pointing out that, as the hon. Gentleman’s own Front Benchers say, the analysis of the benefits of the policy comes out as plus or minus zero: it could have a large cost or be a significant benefit. If we are in that sort of ballpark, we are clearly not talking about huge measures that will cut the deficit.

Under this Government, the wealthy have been paying a lot more every year in income tax than they ever did in any year under Labour. They are paying more in many other ways as well. The Labour Government thought it was okay for the wealthy to pay £250,000 in pension contributions and get full tax relief; the coalition Government have reduced that to £40,000, making £95,000 a year of tax benefits that the Labour Government were happy to give but this Government are not. Capital gains tax was at the derisory level of 18%, and is now 28%. The level the Labour Government charged on capital gains was lower than the rate of income tax, so hedge fund managers could be paying a lower rate of tax than the people who cleaned their offices, a truly shameful record.

If anyone is lucky enough to be spending £1 million a year, they will be paying £25,000 more in VAT. To answer a point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier, people on low pay spend very little on standard rate VAT items. Once again, the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned this: most of the day-to-day living costs of most people—housing, energy, food and many other costs—do not carry standard rate VAT, so the wealthy are paying more there.

The thresholds for inheritance tax were going up under Labour but have been frozen under this Government through the efforts of the Liberal Democrats. We know that the party with which we are in coalition would like to return the level to £1 million, as it campaigned on that during the last election and I believe it will do so again next time. We are pleased that the threshold for inheritance tax has been frozen throughout our time in Government, because we feel it is the right thing to do at this time. We also saw industrial-scale tax avoidance under the previous Government, and many cases now arriving in court go back to the days when they were in power. The idea that this Government are not taxing the wealthy does not stand up to examination.

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) would agree.

The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) is making an important and courageous speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is one that many of us on the Conservative Benches could have made, and I thank him for putting some of the issues that have been raised today into perspective. There has been a lot of outrage on the Opposition Benches but it is important that the history of precisely what went on during the previous Labour Government is put on the record.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I agree that it is important: the narrative that Labour taxes the rich until the pips squeak and that we do not does not stand up to examination.

Corporate Tax Avoidance

Debate between Mark Field and Ian Swales

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on initiating this very important debate, although I must confess that I did not agree with everything he said. I am rather concerned by the strongly anti-business approach to this issue shown by certain Members.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the leaders of all the political parties in formulating what would be regarded as an adequate response to the hot potato of corporate tax avoidance. In today’s 24/7 media world, there is a constant demand on political figures to provide a running commentary on populist media campaigns following the high-profile cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, including global businesses such as Google, Amazon and Starbucks.

I can fully understand the temptation to brand this as a moral issue, appealing to corporates’ consciences when the legislative framework has failed, but it is a temptation that we in politics should try to avoid. In sparking a debate on morality in relation to the payment of tax, I fear that elite politicians open up a dangerous flank, because it suggests that the Government are either impotent or are being disingenuous in their outrage. That applies to Governments of all colours. After all, Parliament must ultimately set the rules within which companies operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) said, the precedent that has now been set, with Starbucks paying an amount of tax that it alone has determined sufficient publicly to salve its conscience, is a very odd one.

I am very concerned about the whole idea of mob rule. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is not in his place. He speaks eloquently about issues such as immigration, and he would be unwise to think that mob rule is a way of dealing with immigration problems, for example. We must recognise that we are a democracy and that this is the forum within which the rules should be made. We should not try to inspire mob rule, whether on the payment of tax or for any other purposes within our society.

I have lost count of the number of times that media commentators have remarked that they would be delighted to apply the same approach to their own tax affairs by paying what they feel like rather than what the Government demand of them. However, I have a much wider concern—that investors will begin to sense that UK policy on tax and regulation is becoming ever more arbitrary, governed more by sentiment and the news cycle than by the strict rules that should be enforced by HMRC and ultimately by the courts. The UK should be proud of its traditional place as a bastion of commercial certainty attracting investment from every corner of the globe, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) pointed out, that will be undermined by high-profile rows such as this.

That is not to say that all is well. As we saw in my own constituency with the protest outside St Paul’s cathedral only a year or so ago, there is deep-seated concern that the rules of capitalism are being skewed. None of us should take this issue lightly, not least—dare I say it?—Conservative Members, as middle-class Tory voters often feel most strongly about it. To focus on arbitrary media campaigns or to invoke mob rule, as several Members have, is entirely the wrong way forward.

Too often, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, coalition Ministers have conflated the concepts of avoidance and evasion in debating taxation policy. The ideal solution is for aggressive tax avoidance schemes to be stopped in their tracks before they are marketed. That requires constant dialogue and the re-establishment of trust between HMRC and tax intermediaries. As a matter of urgency, therefore, the Treasury needs to promote a much better and more extensive pre-clearance regime to allow companies, individuals and tax advisers to road-test their proposed schemes. HMRC must start investing more time in developing and managing relationships with accountants and tax lawyers.

Meanwhile, the Treasury is committed at the time of the next Finance Bill to introducing general tax anti-avoidance provisions. It is clear that any such general power of anti-avoidance will feature some retrospective taxation. That is wrong in a free society, and it will risk further damaging our nation’s reputation as a free, open and transparent place to set up, develop and run businesses.

[Ian Swales]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not interpret my remarks as being anti-business. Does he not worry about the competitive situation if certain companies get away with these practices and are then competing with other companies that do not have the ability to do so?

[Mark Field]

I do. Andy Street, the managing director of John Lewis, has made that point, but it obviously applies to many of the smaller independent companies. I represent a central London seat where a lot of big businesses are based and operate. Nothing is more important than encouraging independents, whether they are restaurants, wine bars or book shops, rather than just relying on big multinationals. No one wants to see all our high streets entirely dominated by large international corporations, many of which may involve themselves in what is currently regarded as aggressive tax avoidance.