Finance (No. 2) Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

The Government’s last Budget has told people what is coming. The spending cuts that the Chancellor has proposed for the next three years will be deeper than those in the past five years, and things will continue to be tight for many families. They want to know that the load is being shared fairly, but that one decision tells us that it is not.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is not one example of how the burden is not being shared fairly the fact that, as we were reminded earlier today, there was one food bank in Scotland when Labour left office, but there are now 50? I am sure that example could be repeated throughout the entire country, and it emphasises the inequitable nature of the Government’s policies.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, when I was talking about VAT in my constituency yesterday, I was struck by the number of people I met who were in work but using food banks. They are trying to do the right thing and working as hard as they possibly can, yet they still cannot put food on the table. How must it feel for them to find themselves in that situation and to know that under the current Government, a millionaire is better off to the tune of a hundred grand a year? I would say that it feels pretty rubbish, and that is what my constituents are telling me every day.

Low Carbon Energy Generation

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Yeo]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he will enlarge on that point when he speaks in the debate, should he catch your eye, Mr Brady—there does not appear to be overwhelming competition for that. However, it is an important point that we need to bring out in the debate about nuclear. I welcome the fact that there are competing technologies that want to get started in the UK, but in deciding which ones we might “go nap” on, we need to focus on value for money. There will perhaps be an opportunity to choose between a number of them, and those that have been tried and tested elsewhere first may have a cost advantage that we should not be afraid of identifying.

Let me move on to renewables, on which there has been excellent progress since 2010. In stimulating new investment in renewables, the regime established by the electricity market reform process and all the accompanying legislation, which some of us have laboured for many hours to improve, is now one of the best in the world from the point of view of investors. Today’s news about the contracts for difference allocations confirms that. There is a lot of interest in investment in renewables here in the UK, and I warmly welcome the success of the CfD regime.

There is, however, a clearly topical issue in this regard that relates directly to my concerns about value for money. The strike prices announced today remind us—much more clearly than the previous, somewhat opaque renewables obligation certificates system ever did, certainly to the layman—of the relative costs of different renewables technologies. Of course, it is great news for consumers that the cost of solar is falling and the strike price is now significantly lower. The rapid and considerable fall in the cost of solar is partly a reflection of the enormous expansion of the solar industry in China, and that has had direct benefits for British consumers. It is now clear that solar can reach grid parity before long, even in this climate.

I am also delighted that today’s announcement makes it clear that a significant amount of new capacity will be provided by onshore wind. I am aware that it is an extremely controversial technology, particularly among many of my hon. Friends, but as we can see today, the truth is that onshore wind offers good value for money, relatively speaking. Of course, there are some—perhaps many—places in which onshore wind turbines are simply unacceptable, for environmental and other reasons, but I would regret it very much if, as a matter of policy, we turned our back on onshore wind altogether. That would turn out to be an expensive mistake, because even with prices for offshore wind falling—again, I welcome the strike prices announced today—onshore wind remains substantially cheaper.

My anxiety about offshore wind is that I do not see the potential for the huge fall in cost that occurred with solar. A large part of the cost of offshore wind is in the installation process of planting and anchoring a turbine in deep and rough waters. There may be a limited number of days on which the process can even be carried out, and the cost of the equipment needed on site is very high. That places a limit on the potential further reduction in the cost of offshore wind. I hope it will come down somewhat—I am sure it will—but I do not envisage a dramatic collapse in cost.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also welcome today’s announcement, particularly in relation to the Neart na Gaoithe wind farm in the firth of Forth. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about cost, but surely he would agree that only through a substantial increase in the volume of offshore wind will there be any possibility of the price falling. I also take his point about consumption, but savings can be made there as well, through advances in technology. It would be wrong to give the impression that offshore wind will not be an important part of the package in future, particularly given our obvious advantages because of our geographical situation.

[Mr Yeo]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not suggesting that we should rule out offshore wind, but I am suggesting that we should be mindful of the fact that at the moment it requires a much bigger subsidy than some of the other renewable technologies, and we need to be hard-headed about what proportion of our available resource we devote to it.

Britain is of course the leader on offshore wind worldwide, so we have already achieved a great deal. Interestingly, there are some relatively shallow waters in Guangdong province in south-eastern China, and quite a big push is being made on offshore wind there as well. That may help the process of bringing the price down. Offshore wind will remain an important part of the energy mix, but I am concerned to ensure that we do not allocate too much of the resource available through the levy control framework to offshore wind.

Last year, we had an announcement about the final investment decision enabling contracts, which I think were announced last April and used up just over half the available resource under the levy control framework. A large chunk of that was allocated under contracts that were at higher prices than those today. Things are always easier with the benefit of hindsight, but looking back, I think that in our anxiety to get the process under way, we may have gone a bit further than we needed to at that early stage and are locked into some relatively expensive contracts. Be that as it may, the benefits of competition and the continuing fall in costs are reflected in today’s strike prices. I therefore urge the Government to be as technology-blind as possible in the future. They should leave local objections to individual proposals or projects to be resolved through the planning system, and try to help the best value for money technologies to continue to cut costs and to flourish.

I have already mentioned that I think that solar will reach grid parity. I think that onshore wind also has the potential to reach grid parity, and if that happens and a local community are happy to see some turbines in their neighbourhood, why should they not be allowed to construct them?

Let me move on to gas, which is not everyone’s idea of a low carbon technology, although compared with unabated coal, it certainly is a lower carbon technology. The problem for Britain with gas is that our reserves are running down, so we are importing a great deal of gas. Luckily, a lot of it comes from our friendly neighbour, Norway, and we are not dependent to any meaningful extent on Russian gas for our consumption. However, we are importing a lot of liquefied natural gas. Interestingly—this came out in the debate that we had a few weeks ago on what was then the Infrastructure Bill—David MacKay’s report in September 2013 pointed out that net greenhouse gas emissions from imported LNG are actually higher than those from shale gas extracted by fracking, so if we continue to use large amounts of imported LNG instead of exploiting what may be significant domestic reserves in the form of shale gas, using fracking, which my Select Committee has reported on twice and regards as potentially a safe technology, we are locking ourselves into a slightly higher emission pattern.

I believe that, no matter what, in the next 15 to 20 years gas will remain an important part of our energy mix. It is completely unrealistic for people to assume that we can get by without consuming a great deal of gas, so we should now press on with exploiting our shale gas reserves. To do that, or even to determine how great those reserves may be, we need to start drilling. I regret the fact that there appears to be continued delay, caused in part by local opposition, to embracing that opportunity.

Britain could be the leader in Europe on shale gas. If we get on with it now, we could write the European rulebook on shale gas. There would be benefits for contractors, supply chain companies and others. There would be an economic advantage for the UK if we delayed no further and pressed on with shale gas, as other countries would then follow our lead. They would overcome their current caution and follow us down the shale gas route. I therefore hope that we will not miss that opportunity. It is just as unrealistic to assume that we can do without lots of gas in the next 15 years as it is to assume that if we close down all our nuclear power stations, they can be replaced by low carbon renewables.

Of course, the lowest carbon energy of all is the energy that we do not use. In this context, I again urge the Government to promote demand-side response. There is still a great deal of misunderstanding about demand-side response. Many people think that it means imposing power cuts on consumers without notice and against their will. It means nothing of the sort. Demand-side response today involves harnessing the latest technology to facilitate voluntary cuts in consumption at peak periods by consumers who are paid for their ability to switch off their power at very short notice. The prize, if we embrace demand-side response, is enormous. It means that we can cut the total electricity generating capacity that has to be maintained. At the moment, we have to have high levels of capacity available even though it might be used only for a few days in the whole year. That is an incredibly wasteful arrangement. If we have a vibrant demand-side response sector, we will not have to have so much capacity. Every consumer will benefit from that, because at the moment every consumer is subsidising capacity that is scarcely ever used.

[Mr Yeo]

I agree, and I am glad that Britain is at least a world leader in research on some of the marine technologies. It is welcome that we are also, I believe, going to go ahead with experimental tidal lagoons in the west country. The potential from those is enormous, but it would be greatly facilitated if we embraced more demand-side response. It would also, of course, be greatly enhanced if our research on storage were successful in finding cheaper ways of storing electricity. That is another very urgent and hitherto somewhat overlooked area.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I was going to make the point that the hon. Gentleman made. As well as the issue of investment in advanced technologies for storage, there is the fact that there are some very tried and tested technologies for storage that are not fully made use of. Does he agree that that also needs to be ramped up by the Government?

[Mr Yeo]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Storage generally, quite apart from new technologies for storage, has been under-emphasised by successive Governments. One of the problems is the mindset. There is a 20th-century mindset, dating back to the old days of the Central Electricity Generating Board. The overriding aim then was to ensure that people never had a power cut, so vast amounts of surplus capacity were maintained at all times. The answer to every anxiety about whether we were going to be short of capacity was, “Let’s build some more power stations.” That was a 20th-century answer; it is not the 21st-century answer. The 21st-century answer is, “Let’s use this more efficiently. Let’s make sure we can avoid the peaks in demand.” We may well not need any net increase in total capacity ever again.

It is therefore, in my view, unfortunate—I put it no more strongly than that—that the Government’s principal adviser on these decisions is a privately owned company whose profits are made for its shareholders by investing in more transmission capacity. The National Grid, in my view, is seriously conflicted in this matter. Quite understandably, it has a regulated UK domestic business, the profits of which are directly increased if Ofgem signs off investment programmes involving more transmission, and more transmission is obviously needed if there are more power stations. Its profits, in the UK market, could go down if we make a sufficient success of demand-side response. We cannot hide from that conflict. I do not cast any aspersion on the integrity of National Grid’s management. They are doing an absolutely straightforward and proper job for their shareholders within the regulatory framework. However, we must not allow that to have an influence on how we see the capacity market develop.

The first round of auctions in the capacity market produced, I have to say, a pitiful allocation to demand-side respondents. This issue is extremely urgent. I know that DECC is looking at it, and a review is taking place of how the auction will work at the end of this year. It is very urgent that we ensure that the next auction has a much more level playing field, so that demand-side respondents are able to bid into this market and get a bigger share of it.

It is a shaming outcome that the principal beneficiaries of the capacity market auction appear to be the most polluting technologies, such as diesel farms and coal-fired power stations. That is exactly what we hoped to avoid. The review of the capacity mechanism is of great importance. Allied to that, we should ensure that as smart meters and other smart technologies are rolled out, they incorporate mechanisms that allow time-of-use pricing to be introduced widely in a way that consumers can easily understand, and that does not penalise poorer consumers. Time-of-use pricing, allied to the demand-side response contribution, has the capacity to cut costs for consumers and reduce the need to maintain excessive amounts of capacity at all times.

Let me give a plug to the importance of the carbon price. The biggest factor, in the long term, in investment decisions favouring low carbon technology will be a significant carbon price, which might be brought about through carbon taxes or through emissions trading. Personally, I have a preference for the latter; a cap-and-trade system has the great merit of making total emissions predictable. If there is a cap, there is a cap. If we rely entirely on carbon taxes, no one can be sure about the elasticity of the market’s response to a particular carbon tax.

I am pleased that the UK Government have been on the side of those arguing for faster and more radical reform of the EU emissions trading system. Unfortunately, it is a work in progress, and there is still a lot to be done to try to make sure that the system is capable of driving a significant carbon price before 2020. A carbon price across the EU ETS will not penalise any one country, because every country will have to face the same imposition. Those who fear that a higher carbon price in the form of a domestic carbon tax would simply drive industry to other countries would not have that fear if the price were driven through the EU ETS.

I hope that the British Government will be among the leaders in the promotion of linkage between the EU ETS and emerging emissions trading systems in other parts of the world. My Committee published a report earlier this month, “Linking emissions trading systems”. We are encouraged, and even impressed, by the progress made over a short space of time by the emissions trading systems in China. We are also encouraged by the establishment of an emissions trading system in California, which is already linked to one of the Canadian provinces.

Emissions trading is an idea that now has critical mass, even though five years ago it seemed to be faltering. If China rolls out a national system during the 13th five-year plan, as I am confident that it will, a third of the world’s population will live in areas covered by emissions trading. If emissions trading spreads in the US, as I think it will, more than half the world’s GDP will come from places where emissions trading operates. The goal—in my view, the wonderful goal—of a global cap-and-trade system starts to come into view. I hope that that will be kept in mind at the Paris COP meeting at the end of the year.

The fifth and most recent assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed the concept of a maximum level of greenhouse gas emissions that can safely be allowed if the world is to keep within the target of an average rise in temperature of no more than 2° centigrade. A maximum safe level of emissions leads naturally to the idea of a global cap-and-trade system, with that maximum as the cap. Although that dream will not be realised in the next five years, we should keep it in mind. The danger is that we will lock ourselves into systems that are incompatible with the achievement of that goal.

In conclusion, I believe that if Britain decarbonises its electricity generation system, our economy will become more competitive, not less. International concern over climate change will intensify quickly over the next few years. That will lead to a significant carbon price, either from emissions trading or from carbon taxes. Countries, industries, companies and perhaps even households that have taken the lead in decarbonising their economies, business models and patterns of consumption will enjoy greater prosperity, not less. Decarbonising electricity will also promote security of energy supply and accelerate the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that Britain will continue to be a leader in that process. In the way in which it achieves that leadership, I hope it will keep clearly in mind the importance of getting the best value for money in each decision that is made to achieve decarbonisation. I emphasise the fact that the decisions we make today have a long-term effect.

I believe that the Government can claim to be the greenest Government ever because of what they have done in the past four and a half years and, importantly, because of their ambitions for the future. The truth is that the benchmark for the accolade of “the greenest Government ever” is not a demanding one, because no previous Government could really claim to have been particularly green. The next five years will, therefore, be judged against a benchmark that is slightly more demanding, and that benchmark will become progressively more demanding in future. I look forward very much to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that he will indicate that he and the Government share my hopes for the future.

Equitable Life

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to have secured the debate with my co-chair of the all-party group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

I am sad that after so many years of debating this issue, we are once again back in the Chamber talking about the continuing losses suffered by hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders. As has been said, they invested in the world’s oldest life assurance company in the belief that they would be able to have a comfortable old age. Instead, after a lifetime of saving, many of them find themselves destitute, and they are certainly much poorer through no fault of their own. How have we arrived at that point, 15 years after Equitable Life closed its doors to new investors and five years after the current Government promised to ensure that losses incurred by Equitable policyholders would be compensated? If Members permit me, I will go back over some of the history of this sorry tale, to give the House and the public some answers.

My first involvement in the Equitable saga was to speak in an Adjournment debate that I secured in Westminster Hall on 24 June 2009. In that debate, I spoke about the serious issues facing all our constituents since the crash of Equitable Life, following its inability to meet its obligations and the promises that it had made to investors over the decades.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I may have been present at that debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in leading the campaign with other hon. Members. Like me and other Members, he will have had the experience of trying to update constituents on the issue but getting back a reply saying, “Unfortunately, my father”—or wife, or husband—“has now died”. That illustrates how important it is to take action now. Although I would like to hear pledges for after the election, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, we also need action now, ideally in the Budget. After an election, it takes time for things to happen. People need payment and good compensation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We must have short interventions. Long interventions are simply not fair, because everybody must have a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents. Members must be polite to each other and make short interventions.

Tax Avoidance

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), whose contribution, as always, was thoughtful. I did not agree with every word, but I sympathised with much of it, and it was in marked contrast to the Opposition’s “Alice in Wonderland” approach to history and policy. Theirs is a topsy-turvy view of recent history that ignores their repeated failure over 13 years to do anything about tax transparency and efficiency, and ignores the work of this coalition Government—but perhaps we should not expect anything more.

Even worse is the Opposition’s remarkably cavalier attitude not just to the facts—I will come to that in a moment—but to the UK financial services industry. We ought to remember that it employs more than 1 million people. I represent a constituency in Greater London. Some 340,000 people in Greater London alone are employed in the financial services sector. It is a world leader for the UK, and the dismissive and scornful attitude shown by some Labour Members to this vital contributor to the tax revenues that fund our public services is pretty shameful.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also represent a constituency to which financial services are important, but should we not be defending and promoting the UK financial services industry, rather than those in offshore havens across the world?

[Robert Neill]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised that point. He and I agree about the importance of financial services, but ironically, the blunderbuss approach taken by the Leader of the Opposition in his extraordinarily inept intervention in relation to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories is a perfect example of the cavalier approach that we have seen from the Opposition. I noticed that the shadow Minister mentioned it only briefly towards the end of her speech, as if some kind of major triumph had been achieved by this statesmanlike international figure, the Leader of the Opposition. I might just dissect that a little in a moment. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) wants to intervene, I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Members will recall that earlier today, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, a question was asked about political engagement. We often discuss in the House how we can tackle the alienation which, as we all recognise, has become so prevalent in our country and others. We suggest various technical fixes, such as online voting, as well as constitutional reform and the like. No doubt all those changes would be beneficial to a greater or lesser degree, but one of the biggest reasons for the disillusionment with the political system must be the fact that people see more and more instances in which the behaviour of banks, other large corporations, and mega-rich individuals—time and again—has involved hundreds of millions, or even billions, of pounds, in malpractice of various sorts: irresponsible speculation, excessive profiteering, the ripping off of consumers through mis-selling, and, as we have seen again this week, tax evasion.

What people also see is that, with very few exceptions—a few scapegoats who are thrown off the gravy train—no one ever seems to account for what they have done. Even the few who are forced to resign often seem to end up with equally lucrative new jobs, while many seem to escape with censure, and proceed onwards and upwards to even more prestigious roles and appointments. If the political system will not hold those institutions and individuals to account, it is no wonder that the public are cynical about the system. That is one of the reasons why we must now show that we will crack down on abuses such as tax evasion, not just for the future but, when possible, in order to deal with what has happened in the past.

The HSBC scandal must be properly investigated. I welcome the decision of the Public Accounts Committee to hold an urgent inquiry. I am sure that it will be forensic and hard-hitting, as the Committee’s inquiries normally are, but it will inevitably be time-limited, and I therefore hope that those who are members during the next Parliament will continue its activities then. However, this is not just a matter for Parliament to investigate.

The Minister has tried to wash his hands of any responsibility for action by the Government. He said earlier that it was for HMRC to decide whether to pursue individuals in Switzerland and, if necessary, to go to the Swiss courts. That may be true in relation to individual cases, but this does not just involve individual tax evaders. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), what has been revealed is collusion of various kinds with those involved in criminal activity: a massive criminal conspiracy with an international dimension.

Let me ask the Minister a simple question, to which I hope she will reply. Given this week’s revelations in The Guardian about HSBC—revelations of which I think her colleague the Financial Secretary said he had not previously been fully aware—do the Government now accept that an investigation of those revelations should take place in the United Kingdom, and who do they believe should conduct such an investigation?

This is not, of course, just a question of HSBC; it involves the whole system. While I am pleased that the international community has made certain commitments to tackle tax dodging and some steps have been taken, the fact remains that real progress has been made at a glacial rate. That is why the public are becoming impatient, and that is why there has been such strong support for the campaign for an anti-tax dodging Bill among non-governmental organisations. I welcome the commitment by Opposition Front-Benchers to include such a Bill in their legislative programme soon after the general election.

Offshore Wind Developments

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be gobsmacked to know that I do not agree. I will mention that later. No doubt, he will make his own points on that subject.

When I served on the Energy Bill Committee, I raised concerns about the changeover process from renewable obligations to the contract for difference regime. That seems to be part of the problem that we are experiencing. The renewables obligation comes to an end in 2017. The difficulty arises because of the way that the CfD process is being introduced, particularly in respect of whether and at what level funds will be available in future years.

Two developments off the shores of my constituency have a combined total of 1,234 MW and both are bidding in the first round of contracts for difference. The Government are currently considering that first round of CfDs, which are due to be allocated, I understand, around the end of March. Therein lies part of the difficulty. New projects have to bid for contracts for difference through a competitive auction process, and offshore wind projects will compete not only with each other for the budget, but against other renewable energy projects. Offshore wind has been grouped with wave, tidal, biomass, combined heat and power and Scottish island wind. There is a total budget for all these technologies of £235 million, which is split between £155 million for 2016-17 and £80 million from 2017-18.

RenewableUK has estimated that this would be enough to bring forward around 700 MW of capacity—just over half of what could be produced by the two developments off Angus alone, never mind any others that might be in the pipeline. RenewableUK has estimated that up to 3.5 GW of capacity could have entered into the current allocation round, and by the time of the second allocation round, expected towards the end of this year, the number could rise to over 9 GW.

I am told that the amount of money allocated to the first round, which is under way, is significantly less than the industry expected, and that is causing considerable unease in the industry. It can be seen from the figures I have quoted that there is no way all three Scottish entrants could achieve a CfD. Indeed, given that there will certainly be bids from other parts of the UK, there is no guarantee that any of them will get a contract at all. That leaves the industry facing a dilemma. As Gordon Edge, director of policy at RenewableUK, put it:

“There is enough money on the table for 700-800MW in this allocation round if all the money in the ‘less established’ pot goes to offshore wind”,

which he considered likely. He said:

“There are a number of large offshore wind projects coming forward that are significantly larger than this. Developers of those projects are left with the choice of carving out a piece of their development to fit—which is likely to make the economics more challenging—or sitting it out in the hope of a better opportunity later. If the budget for the next allocation round is the same as the first round, then less than 10 per cent of capacity we project will be eligible to bid can secure a CfD. It can take hundreds of millions of pounds to get offshore wind projects through consent, which is why the industry is getting very hot under the collar.”

There is a real danger that some developers will begin to consider whether they are prepared to continue to pump large sums of money into projects if there is not at least a real chance that they will secure a contract for difference.

I raised that issue with the Secretary of State at the last Department of Energy and Climate Change questions. I said:

“Many offshore wind developers have expressed concern that owing to the structure of the current contracts for difference allocation round, only one development will be given a CfD, imperilling many of the others. Can the Secretary of State give them any reassurance that there will be greater consideration of offshore wind in future CfD allocations?”

The Secretary of State responded:

“First, it is worth putting it on the record…that Britain leads the world in offshore wind”—

that is perhaps true, and is welcome—

“with more offshore wind farms installed than in the rest of the world combined. In the current round of CfD allocations—of course, it has not been completed yet, so I cannot talk about the details—we have ensured that we have sufficient allocation for offshore wind, but we have also ensured that the levy control framework includes further allocations for it, so that the consumer can benefit from dropping prices.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1551-1552.]

The difficulty with that is that the allocations for future rounds are not clear, and that is causing a great deal of concern in the industry.

What the Secretary of State said is all very well, but there is no certainty about the future budget, because the Government are giving no market signals about what the budgets are likely to be in future allocation rounds, and in future years, and there is no visibility beyond the current delivery plan, which extends to 2018-19. That uncertainty will almost certainly lead to developers looking again at developments. Without the confidence that budgets will be available, it is impossible for them to assess the allocation risk, and that will act as a deterrent to investors. Uncertainty could increase the cost of development, rather than create the savings that the Government are looking for.

For those projects that are not successful in the current round or whose capacity is too large to be supported within the available budget—the only definite figures that are available are under the current budget—lack of foresight could increase uncertainty yet further. The industry has suggested that it needs clarity on the frequency of allocation rounds and foresight of at least two allocation budgets at any time. Will the Minister say whether the Department is considering or is prepared to consider that in the near future?

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Given that there are some technologies for which the Government are prepared to agree contracts for many decades into the future, does he agree that the Minister should indicate whether they will take a similar approach to renewables?

[Mr Weir]

I should perhaps introduce the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who mentioned nuclear energy, and they could have a small debate on that point, which I will come to shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Gray, and I will bear in mind your comments about the length of our speeches.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), and his colleagues who approached the Backbench Business Committee, on raising this important issue. It is important for all sorts of reasons, not least that renewables, onshore and offshore wind in particular, provide a secure energy source in the control of this country and do not lead to dependence on less secure sources elsewhere in the world. Recently, volatility in energy price markets has reminded us how prices go up and down and that when we depend on other countries, we are clearly less secure.

Wind is a form of energy production that, as has been emphasised, is clean and contributes to our commitment to reduce carbon emissions. It also provides real employment opportunities. The hon. Gentleman referred to potential developments off the coast of Angus. I am not sure which constituency they are off—that depends on the starting point—but although they are not off my constituency, it is certainly among those that could benefit from developing offshore wind power off the east coast of Scotland. I take on board the points made about the potential elsewhere in the North sea as well.

Some time ago, the major Spanish offshore wind turbine production company, Gamesa, proposed a major plant in my constituency that could have brought in excess of 1,000 jobs to our area and the south-east of Scotland. The proposal now seems very much up in the air, however, and one reason for that is uncertainty about the direction of Government policy, along with uncertainty arising from international pressures that are beyond our Government’s control.

A real problem is certainly the lack of consistency and long-term vision to which my colleague on the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), referred. A clear message and vision on the Government’s part is essential; there needs to be a clear long-term policy. The long-term support mechanism, the levy control framework, is an important issue that needs to be addressed if we are to see more investment in the offshore wind sector.

Another issue is the small budget available for the newer technologies such as offshore wind and marine. The size of the budget restricts development in the offshore wind sector and has a knock-on effect on other, newer technologies. In my constituency, we had the recent bad news about the closure of the Pelamis wave turbine plant, adding to other problems in the wave energy sector throughout the UK. Among the many complicated reasons for the Pelamis decision was long-term uncertainty.

Another problem when the budget is so small is that the more established technologies are much more likely than the less established ones to get what money is available. In effect, the limited budget is more likely to go to offshore wind, and therefore less likely to go to other technologies such as marine renewables. That is another effect of having only a small budget for newer renewable technologies.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman is the second speaker to talk about the need for consistency. I am sure that is exactly what the industry wants and needs, but in an industry whose business model relies on large amounts of subsidy, Government interaction in the process is reasonable. The industry must understand that, despite the desire for consistency, the Government are entitled to do their best to bring prices down to a level closer to grid parity—something we would all like to see.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I do not disagree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says; in fact, he made a point I was about to make. I of course accept that we cannot subsidise any renewables technology at any price, simply because renewables are a good thing; but we also have to recognise that as such technologies develop and become more mature, the price reduces dramatically. We could end up in a vicious circle: if we do not support newer and initially more costly renewables technologies at the start, their price will never reduce and they will not become commercial, in relative terms, over a longer period. That comes back to the point about the need for long-term consistency and vision, and to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Government’s approach.

Some renewables technologies will of course be more expensive initially. However, if we do not take up the immense opportunities available to develop them, nationally and internationally, other countries will do so and we will lose out. That is what happened with wind, when countries such as Denmark took over our position on engineering and exports. No doubt countries such as China will also take a leading role in renewables if we do not. What we have is a short-term strategy, not a long-term vision. I fully accept that the Government have taken some steps in the right direction, but they should do more. I hope the Minister will give a positive response to the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Angus and for Waveney, and others.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) on introducing the debate. There are constraints on the length of the speeches that we can make today, so I hope to expand on some of my remarks when I open the Second Reading debate on the Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill on Friday 16 January in the main Chamber.

Hon. Members who have spoken so far have shown themselves to be subsidy junkies. The problem is that the contracts for difference are a way of using taxpayers’ money to subsidise what is in essence an uneconomic activity. Given today’s oil prices, it is just as well that we—the British taxpayer and energy consumer—have not entered into contracts for difference with those engaged in exploration and production in the North sea. With the dramatic reductions in the price of oil and costs remaining much the same, such contracts would cost us an absolute fortune. Is that not the problem with the subsidy road down which the hon. Member for Angus wishes to take us?

There has been no mention of the economic context, the budget deficit or the burgeoning national debt, which continues to increase because we are running an unsustainable and unacceptable budget deficit. Common sense surely dictates that low-carbon energy should be provided at the minimum cost to the taxpayer and the energy consumer. We can get much cheaper low-carbon energy from nuclear than we can from offshore wind, so why are we investing in offshore wind? My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said that we were leading the world and investing in more offshore wind than anyone else, but is there not a reason to be slightly cautious? Why is no one else doing it? Because they see it as totally uneconomic and wasteful of resources.

On a recent visit to Denmark, I discussed with Danish politicians their offshore wind programme. They have cancelled any new development of offshore wind off the Danish coast because of their bad experiences. Their industry, however, enjoys the prospect of being able to benefit from United Kingdom subsidies, so that it can develop offshore wind off our islands; that is something that the Danes are no longer prepared to do off the coast of Denmark.

In my constituency a lot of jobs and prosperity are based on tourism. The proposal to construct up to 200 offshore wind turbines, each up to 200 metres high, has generated opposition from the people of Christchurch, Bournemouth, Poole and south Dorset the like of which I have never seen before. The development would be close to the shore in an area that would impact badly on the Jurassic coast world heritage site. Why is that development even being put forward? It is because of the subsidies; if there were no subsidies, it would not be happening.

There is a planning inquiry at the moment, and if the development is approved we will effectively be subsidising, through our taxes, a development that will impact badly on the Jurassic coast world heritage site. Yet at the same time we are saying, as Government policy, that we are prepared to invest in subsidies for a tunnel under Stonehenge to reduce the impact on that world heritage site. We might think that an inconsistency in Government policy, since we are prepared to used subsidies to exacerbate the impact on the environment in which the Jurassic coast world heritage site is situated.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—and I hope the Minister will respond to these points—that we should be looking at new technologies, so that we are not dependent on technology already developed by overseas competitors and can be world leaders. Wave and tidal power offer a much better prospect. If we are to put taxpayer-funded subsidies into renewables, that is a better sector in which to do so than offshore wind energy. In any event, it is also sensible to invest more in nuclear.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Just to be clear, is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that he is not in favour of greater subsidies for offshore wind but happy to see greater subsidies for other marine technologies? I support higher subsidies to allow those technologies to develop, but I am interested to hear what level of subsidy he is prepared to see given to them.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is, of course, about offshore wind.

BMI Pension Fund Compensation

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sanders.

The issue that I will address today is complex but it potentially directly affects many hundreds of people throughout the UK, including many people in the Edinburgh and Lothian area. In fact, one of my constituents is affected, and they have asked me to raise the issue in Parliament. I am glad to have this opportunity to do that, because the issue has wide implications beyond those who are directly affected by it.

The issue is complex, and I will therefore have to spend a bit of time setting out the background to it. I am sure that those hon. Members who are taking part in the debate will be familiar with the subject and its history, but many of those listening outside this place will not be so aware, so it will be helpful to set out some background.

Let me start with the history. BMI—British Midland Airways—was, as Members will know, a major UK airline. It operated from a number of UK airports, and that geographical spread across the UK is reflected in the Members who have shown a particular concern about the issue. They are from the Lothian area, from London, from Northern Ireland and from the east midlands itself, where the former headquarters of BMI was situated. I know that all of them have been in correspondence with Ministers over a considerable period.

As Members will also know, from about 2009 the airline went into a complex set of changes of ownership. Those changes were stimulated by a decision of the major shareholder and founder of the airline, Michael Bishop, who is now a Conservative peer, Lord Glendonbrook. He exercised an option that resulted in Lufthansa becoming the 100% shareholder of BMI. However, under UK pensions law, at least as applied by the Pensions Regulator at the time, that did not mean that Lufthansa took on any legal obligation to fund the BMI pension scheme.

In due course, Lufthansa decided to sell BMI. However, part of the condition of the sale that Lufthansa agreed with the International Airlines Group, of which British Airways is a major component, was that responsibility for the pension scheme should be removed from BMI. There was a solution proposed by Lufthansa initially, but it was not approved by the Pensions Regulator, for reasons that I will not dwell upon here; they are not directly relevant to the subject matter of the debate.

In any event, the outcome of all these comings and goings was that the BMI pension fund, and therefore the Pension Protection Fund, received £16 million from Lufthansa. In addition, Lufthansa provided a further £84 million to top up members’ benefits outside the PPF, even though it did not appear to have a legal obligation to do so.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Sanders, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does it seem to him that that move in this takeover was a calculated one to strip 80% of the pension away from those long-serving employees?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Well, that was certainly the outcome in many cases; that was what happened to the pension scheme members. Certainly, it was clear that part of the agreement that Lufthansa reached with the companies taking over the former BMI operation was that effectively the pension scheme responsibility would not go with the airline, which is very concerning and, as I have said, has much wider implications beyond the BMI pension scheme, although I am obviously concentrating on that today.

The arrangement by Lufthansa to top up members’ benefits outside the PPF seems, on the face of it, relatively generous. However, hundreds of staff in the BMI pension scheme will lose substantial sums in pension money, and I understand from the British Air Line Pilots Association that there are now some people in the Monarch Airlines pension fund who are in similar circumstances. Hundreds will lose out. At least 30 of the BMI pensioners and 13 Monarch members will lose more than 50% of their expected scheme pension, and that is taking account of the top-up payments from Lufthansa. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has decided that although those top-up payments do not in any sense compensate for the full loss of pension entitlement, they must be taxed. That decision is wrong, and addressing it is the purpose of raising this issue today.

The tax treatment is, of course, intimately bound up with issues about the PPF, which is a wider problem that the Government also need to address. I will try to tackle both the immediate and the broader issue, in so far as I can in the time available this morning.

The Government response to the concerns that have been raised by a number of members of the BMI pension fund scheme has so far been, in general terms, one of sympathy. They are basically saying, “'Well, the tax rules are the tax rules and they must be applied, and that’s really all there is to it.” However, that is not in any sense a satisfactory response—not in the slightest. Ultimately, the tax rules are what Parliament—we as MPs, and our colleagues in the Lords—decide them to be, and the Government have frequently taken action to deal with other situations where the application of the tax law has seemed unfair or inequitable in its outcome.

For example, a couple of years ago the Government decided to impose VAT on building alterations to listed buildings. However, because that change would have hit churches and other places of worship particularly hard, the Government set up a special scheme to allow grants to be paid to those bodies to pay for the costs of extra VAT. When the Government want to find a way round the rules, they can do so.

On another pensions issue, a very relevant comparison can be made with the case of Equitable Life. In that case, although it appeared that the Government had no legal obligation to pay those people whose pensions had been hit by the Equitable Life fiasco, as a result of political pressure they of course set up a fund to pay out compensation—I think it is £1.5 billion in total—to Equitable Life policyholders, which Members across the House had called for. Of course, the payments to the Equitable Life pension holders will be tax-free, because the Government passed a law to say that that would be the case. Yet the Government are trying to distinguish between the logic behind the Equitable Life scheme decision, and that behind the BMI pension fund scheme decision.

In that context, I will quote a previous Minister, who told the House, or perhaps wrote in a letter—I am not entirely certain—that:

“Following an Independent Commission report, The Equitable Life Act”—

That is, the Equitable Life Pensions Act 2010—

“came into effect in December 2010 authorising the Government to make payments to the Equitable Life Payments Scheme. The Act provides that payments under the ELPS are tax free.”

He said, or implied, that there was a contrast with the BMI case, by going on to say:

“The £84 million payment made by Lufthansa is a voluntary payment intended to compensate BMI Pension Scheme members for the reduction in pension benefits they may face due to the BMI Pension Scheme entering the Pension Protection Fund. Where the payment is made into a registered pension scheme, it is subject to the registered pensions scheme tax legislation. As such, the payments will benefit from receiving tax relief when it is made, but that relief is subject to the normal limits within the annual and lifetime allowances. The ELPS payment and the payment made by Lufthansa are therefore fundamentally different and cannot be compared in this way.”

As I have pointed out, the two cases are “fundamentally different” because the Government passed legislation to make them fundamentally different, and not because they are, in essence, fundamentally different. These are both cases in which people lost out because of circumstances beyond their control, and we have a moral duty as Parliament and as Government to respect that in the case of the BMI pension fund holders as well as in the case of the Equitable Life pension fund holders, and indeed in other cases.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and I also apologise to him, because I will not be able to stay for the duration. He is making a really important point about the Lufthansa deal. I share his concern about the individuals affected, but does he agree that there are implications beyond this individual deal for staff of other companies that might seek to do copycat deals?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. I have made that point already and I will touch on it briefly again. Certainly, this raises much wider issues.

Just as the payments quite rightly made to the Equitable Life pension scheme members were compensation—they were not a direct benefit arising from the scheme—similarly, the BMI pension fund members have lost out through no fault of their own, and I believe they require better treatment. The Equitable Life experience shows that where the Government decide that they want, for political reasons, to compensate those who have suffered adversely through circumstances beyond their control, they can find a way to do so. I believe that they should do so for the BMI pension scheme members.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He is making a relevant and important point about the difference in how Equitable Life payments and these payments are treated for tax purposes. When I wrote on behalf of some people in my part of the world, in Northern Ireland, who are affected by this, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote back:

“As I am sure you will appreciate, HM Revenue & Customs has to apply legislation consistently, and does not have discretion to waive rules passed by Parliament.”

We accept that entirely, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is right to say that the rules are what the Government and Parliament decide. In this case there is inequity and it needs to be addressed.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I agree. That is precisely my point.

I ask the Minister to take a number of steps and, if she is not prepared to agree to them today, perhaps she will at least consider them and come back to hon. Members at a later stage.

First, it is right for the Government to ask HMRC to review the application of the tax rules in this case. The trustees of the BMI pension fund did lobby for the rules applying to the then annual allowance limits and the lifetime allowance rules to be disapplied in the case of the BMI scheme, because of the special circumstances of the scheme. I should not have thought that it was impossible for it to review the rules, given the special circumstances, notwithstanding the legislation that applies to pensions more generally.

Secondly, if HMRC will not review the position, I ask the Government to consider legislating to make a change for this particular case. Again, the Equitable Life scheme is a model that can be followed.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend provide some clarification to help me with questions that I may later ask the Minister? I recall that he questioned a former Exchequer Secretary about this issue in Parliament, who offered to set out more detail in writing. Did my hon. Friend receive that information? Would anything that came out of that be helpful in this debate?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Minister sent me a letter that I think was received by all hon. Members who wrote to him about the issue. It was helpful, but I do not think it added anything particular with regard to the concerns that I am raising.

Thirdly, if the Government are not prepared to change the legislation, I ask them to consider making an additional one-off payment to the BMI pension fund scheme to allow payments to pension fund members to be topped up, to at least allow for the fact that tax has been taken off. A parallel to that is VAT on church buildings: although taxes were increased by the Government, a compensation scheme was set up to pay those churches, allowing them to pay the tax back to the Government. Things like that can be done when the Government want to.

Fourthly, I ask the Government to move ahead as quickly as possible with the proposals to allow an increased cap in the Pension Protection Fund for those with long service in the pension scheme. I am aware that this is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions and that the relevant Minister has been pursuing it, but I hope that the Minister here today will urge her colleagues in that Department to introduce those changes speedily, to ensure that there is at least some benefit, hopefully to members of the BMI pension fund scheme, and to others, who are losing out because of the cap in the Pension Protection Fund provisions.

At a time of financial pressures, it might be said that it cannot be a priority for the Government to find money to top up pension payments to a group of workers who will have been relatively highly paid during their work life and will still receive a relatively high pension compared with the average paid for by the safety net of the Pension Protection Fund. I can see that argument being made. There might be those who are cynical and will say that, whereas millions were affected by the Equitable Life scheme, only a few hundred people spread across the country are affected here and that, bluntly, that is not going to make a difference in the general election next year. Indeed, that would be cynicism, because there is a matter of justice here: these people contributed to their pension over many years and are now going to receive much less than they expected.

To give an example of the sums lost, let me mention my constituent who raised the matter with me, no doubt because he is so concerned about what has happened. Even allowing for the Pension Protection Fund guarantee, he is facing a shortfall of £700,000 on his pension fund. He will receive about £134,000 from the Lufthansa scheme, so when allowing for the tax taken off the Lufthansa compensation, he will still be almost £600,000 worse off.

Let us bear in mind that the employer did not go bust, and the Pension Protection Fund had to bail out the pensions, as it was set up to do. In fact, the previous major shareholder sold his shareholding at a profit that some have estimated to be in excess of £200 million. He sold it to Lufthansa, which then sold the entire company—or most of it, to be precise: of course, bits of it were disposed elsewhere—to IAG. Lufthansa and IAG are both international airline companies whose fortunes go up and down but, bluntly, in most years their profits number in the hundreds of millions and billions of pounds and euros. These companies have not gone bust.

In the middle of all this activity, where some people and companies are making lots of money, the long-standing former staff of BMI are losing large parts of a pension for which they worked all their working life. Of course, through the levy they are paying to the Pension Protection Fund, other companies are paying the costs of compensation going to the scheme’s members, because the pension fund members are no longer receiving it from pension funds and, therefore, from the companies by which they were employed.

As I have said, there appears to be a similar development in the case of Monarch Airlines. Indeed, there is no reason in principle why this type of arrangement could not apply to other company pensions and to people at any income level, not just those who happen to be higher paid, as with members of the BMI pension fund.

Clearly, there is something wrong here, both in respect of the individuals affected by this case and what is happening more generally with regard to how the Pension Protection Fund scheme is used, and particularly in this case. The situation needs to be remedied. The Government need to act, not just for these pension scheme members, but to ensure that this practice is not taken up increasingly by other companies that see a way of escaping from their pension obligations when they choose to restructure or in other ways change the nature of their business and dispose of parts of their operations.

I have taken some time today, but this is an important issue, not just for those affected by these developments, but more widely. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the points that I have made.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to make a small contribution to the debate, Mr Sanders.

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for bringing this matter forward. He clearly set out the scene for us all. Hon. Members are here because our constituents have expressed concern. We are aware of people from Northern Ireland who are equally disadvantaged because of what has taken place. This debate is of the utmost importance, because it deals with people’s futures and livelihoods. These are the kinds of issues that Members of Parliament ought to deliberate upon.

In 2012, the parent group of British Airways and Iberia, International Airlines Group, struck a deal with Lufthansa, the then parent group of BMI, to buy the company. The attraction of BMI lay in its control of 9% of the valuable slots at London Heathrow. That sets the scene. The matter then became difficult, and BMI employees found themselves disadvantaged. Originally, they thought the deal was a good one, but it clearly turned out not to be.

The deal saw former BMI staff lose £177 million from their pensions, because it was structured so that IAG could avoid taking on BMI’s final salary pension scheme, which was placed into the Pension Protection Fund. I am deeply disappointed that the Pension Protection Fund has not been able to act strongly on behalf of BMI staff. When the Minister replies, she may wish to address that issue.

That arrangement meant that about 3,700 BMI staff and pilots lost at least 10% of their savings, as the PPF pays only 90% of a pension, up to a maximum of £27,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of just one person, which shows the magnitude of the figures.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Perhaps I should explain that my understanding is that the Lufthansa compensation was graduated in such a way that those with the biggest pension losses got the least compensation. At the top end, only 10% or 20% of the losses were compensated for, and the rest was lost entirely. Those with long service suffered the worst.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which helps to clarify the matter.

As a good-will gesture, Lufthansa agreed to pay £84 million in compensation, which staff were offered as a one-off cash payment or which could be added to a defined contribution pension scheme. However, staff were then informed that any cash payments would be taxed. Clearly, there is an issue there. Lufthansa was also advised that it would not have to pay national insurance on cash payments, even though members of the BMI pension scheme were not direct employees of the German airline.

Understandably, that has caused a lot of frustration among former BMI employees. As far as they are concerned, they worked for x years and paid x into a pension scheme, which they are now entitled to, but because of dealings between the parent companies, they are now to lose out. We are here for justice and fair play for our constituents and for those who have been disadvantaged.

At the time, BALPA, the pilot’s union, said:

“Pilots in bmi are rightly outraged that their pensions are to be significantly reduced. These pilots have invested their careers in this airline, and a large proportion of their salary in its pension scheme.”

That is how its members felt, and they still feel that way, because the issue has not been sorted out.

The BMI Pensions Action Group was set up to seek justice for employees who were disadvantaged by the company buy-over. When the possibility of BMI’s sale first arose in autumn 2011, BALPA sought assurances, and reassuring noises were made by Lufthansa, which said that there was nothing to worry about, and the UK Pensions Regulator said it had powers to hold companies to account. Members of the scheme received no communications after December 2011, when Lufthansa said it was going to retain the pension obligation. Those in the scheme were led to believe that they were okay, but they clearly were not.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is clear. It is disgraceful that those whom we represent have been treated shabbily, to use his terminology. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I ask the Minister to review the situation, because we are talking about 4,000 employees. The Government did that for Equitable Life, even though they said they could not. Members asked in Westminster Hall for that to happen—every one of us here today was probably here for Equitable Life’s members, and we are here today for the 4,000 BMI workers who have been disadvantaged.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Minister might be nervous about how much we are asking to be given away, and it might assist her if I say that the 4,000 is the figure for all the scheme members, some of whom will have been below the Pension Protection Fund cap. All the members have an interest, and they all deserve justice of course, but those who have been particularly badly hit are relatively few in number.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister has been listening intently to Members’ interventions, and we know that she takes all the detail on board and responds. We look forward to her response, and we hope we can get answers to the questions we are asking. If we do, that would be good news.

The Sunday Telegraph said BMI pensioners are facing a “double whammy”. They have not only lost out on payments, but now face tax and national insurance payments on what should be straightforward compensation. That is completely unacceptable, and I am glad that we have the opportunity today to say that on behalf of our constituents and those who have contacted us.

We are dealing with people’s livelihoods in what are difficult financial times. As the hon. Gentleman suggested in his intervention, the figures involved are not substantial financially, but they have an impact on a great many people. In some way, these 4,000 people are disadvantaged. They have conscientiously paid into a pension scheme, only to be told that they will not get as much as they were initially promised or what they are due. To top it off, when they were actually offered cash payments, they were told those would be subject to tax. They were almost dragged into the system, but they then found themselves in a difficult position. We must work with the unions to resolve these issues, because these people are being treated unjustly. There are also implications for other pension schemes.

In conclusion, I implore the Minister to take on board the comments made by the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and those who will speak later. On behalf of my constituents and other constituents in Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister to review the situation and give scheme members the moneys they should be getting. That is what justice cries for, and that is what we wish to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I will come on to that and address other Members’ points as well once I have made some progress. Some individuals may have existing enhanced or fixed protection, which means that they can test their pensions against the lifetime allowance at the time at which those protections were granted. That is subject to no further contributions being made to their pension schemes. As payments from the £84 million will be relievable contributions, members who have existing enhanced or fixed protection would lose those rights if the contribution was made to a defined contribution scheme. Again, only a small number of people will be affected by that.

Individuals will have a choice about how they access their share of the £84 million paid by Lufthansa to a defined contribution pension scheme on their behalf. From April 2015, individuals will be able to access the funds as a lump sum or as a series of payments or they can choose to purchase an annuity or draw-down product, provided that they are aged 55 or older. Alternatively, they could choose to transfer to a different pension arrangement. Payments on pensions will be subject to the individual’s marginal rate of income tax and no NICs will be payable.

I will come on to many of the points addressed in the debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned the costs for those affected. Those will depend on the precise circumstances and how payments are made. Such payments made direct to a scheme will be taxable, but the contributions will receive tax relief up to the normal limits. We do not have an estimate of the total cost to the Treasury should tax charges not be applied, but, as I said, that is dependent on the circumstances of how the payments are made.

The scheme was compared in a number of contributions to the Government’s approach in the one-off payments made under the Equitable Life payment scheme. It is worth highlighting that that scheme was established back in 2011 in response to the parliamentary ombudsman report that identified areas of Government maladministration in respect to the regulation of Equitable Life. The Government accepted the then ombudsman’s report and, as a result, made the ex-gratia payment for the loss stemming from what was Government maladministration at the time. The circumstances surrounding the loss of pensions relief for members of the BMI scheme is not owing to the Government’s maladministration and, therefore, it is not comparable in that sense at all.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith as well as other Members touched on HMRC and reviewing rules relating to the annual allowance and lifetime allowance. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has set out, HMRC must apply tax legislation consistently and it does not have discretion to waive tax charges intended by Parliament. The legislation is clear in respect of that: all new contributions into defined contribution schemes are tested against the annual allowance and all benefits are tested against the lifetime allowance.

It is fair to say that this is a complicated matter that is not at all comparable to Equitable Life. The Government are familiar with the case, which has been raised by many Members in the debate today as well as in previous representations.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I accept that there is no direct parallel with Equitable Life except in the sense that the BMI pension fund members and others have also been the victims of a regulatory system that did not deliver what it ought to have done in some way. In recognition of that, they too deserve some action by Government. Tax treatment is one suggestion, but the House should be able to take forward other suggestions as well.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that we have an issue with regards to amending legislation that is meant to apply to all pension savers. We are obviously sympathetic and it is clear that the situation is not satisfactory. I will commit to taking away all the considerations and points raised and I intend to raise them directly with the Department for Work and Pensions, because what has happened and the effect that that has had on people is unacceptable. I am unable to be any more specific than that, because I am looking at this matter from the perspective of tax implications and not the overall implications, which would be done by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Finally, I will address a point made by the hon. Members for Livingston, for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about the Pensions Regulator and the PPF. I assure the House that the Pensions Regulator has the power to take action when it feels that there is deliberate manipulation in the affairs of an employer who is effectively seeking to walk away from their pensions liabilities. That is a valid point and the Pensions Regulator has powers to deal with that. It would be wrong for any organisation to seek to do that and it is solely for the Pensions Regulator to address that.

It is clearly not right to seek to offload pension obligations for the wrong reasons. The debate has highlighted that where individuals have done the right thing by seeking to save for the future by investing in their pensions, it is proper that we have the right safeguards in place. As I have said to all Members today, I will look to discuss this matter with the Department for Work and Pensions to see how we can take it further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

That particular measure has not brought in as much as was forecast, but I can point to others that have brought in more than was forecast. One example is disguised remuneration, which the Office for Budget Responsibility highlighted last week and has brought in more than was anticipated. We anticipated that it would bring in £750 million a year; it will bring in more than that. By the way, that measure was opposed by the Labour party.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the housing market on the economy.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. The Government’s Help to Buy scheme and last week’s stamp duty reforms will continue to support housing market activity and new housing supply is already responding with housing starts growing by 16% in the year to 2014 in quarter three.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The recent measures are no doubt welcome, but would the Minister care to confirm that annual house completions have been lower in every year under her Government than in every year of the last Labour Government?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The point is that we believe in the aspiration to buy your own home. We have seen house prices recover but they are still in real terms lower than they were at the peak under the last Government. This Government have delivered housing starts at their highest since 2007 and our Help to Buy scheme, which has helped 77,000 people to get on to the property ladder, is a very important measure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We often heard Labour Members say that they were going to oppose a tax cut for hedge funds. It turned out that it was not a tax cut for hedge funds but a tax cut that benefits pension funds, yet they want to reverse it.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

While the Minister is talking about cutting tax on pensions, will he spare a thought for the 4,000 members of the British Midland International pension scheme who lost considerable sums of pension entitlement when their airline was taken over? Lufthansa offered them substantial compensation, but Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now insisting on taxing it. What is he doing about that?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question and I have met a couple of hon. Members to discuss the issue. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to apply the law as it currently stands, but that does not give it a great deal of discretion. This is a complicated matter and I am more than happy to set out details in writing for the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend, who represents Erewash so well, is absolutely right. Aspiring to one’s first new home is something that we all wish for, for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. This Government are determined to do something about that while ensuring that we do not do anything that would enable an unsustainable housing boom.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. One of the features of the UK housing market is that millions of houses are inefficient in their use of energy, and even much new housing is not as energy-efficient as it ought to be. The Help to Buy scheme could have been used as a way of providing a massive boost to more energy-efficient UK housing stock, but that opportunity has so far been lost. What will the Government do to remedy this deficiency?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is right that house builders should be seizing the opportunity to make homes as energy-efficient as possible. That does not, however, detract from the very important point that the Help to Buy scheme was started to try to regenerate growth in the housing market, and that is an achievement that all Members should be proud of.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I am pleased to say that a 21st-century service is well on its way. We have the greatest roll-out of 4G technology anywhere in the world and the major mobile providers will complete their 4G mobile coverage two years ahead of schedule. We will then take a look at how effective that is and we will continue to work with mobile operators to improve mobile coverage.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. What is the Government’s current position on net neutrality, particularly given recent discussions and decisions in both Europe and the United States?

[Mr Vaizey]

I like to think that we were ahead of the curve in putting together a code of conduct, to which the major internet service providers and mobile phone companies have subscribed, under which they agreed that they would not block traffic for anti-competitive reasons. Obviously, we are carefully examining the telecoms package that the European Commission has proposed, which includes a potential regulation on net neutrality.