Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

At times, the debate has seemed like a meeting of old lags, since some of us have been discussing this issue for many years.

I would like to be able to say, like other Members, that many of my constituents are still coming to see me about Equitable Life. I cannot, however, although many constituents used to do so; unfortunately, time has done its work and there are now few left. They are people like my constituent Gertrud, an elderly lady who thought she had made the right choice and would have a decent standard of life in retirement, but who is now living off 25% of what she thought she would get, which is very difficult. The situation is the same throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) unfortunately cannot be here today, but she told me of her constituent Ishbel, who is in the same situation. These are elderly people who had made the right decision and found that they had lost out.

The motion before us today notes that the Government have made no further funding available in the spring Budget. Several Members have mentioned that this is similar to the situation of the WASPI women. These are totally different issues—one is about retirement age while the other is about the amount received from private pensions—but, as others have mentioned, they bring us to the same thing: ever more people believe that it is not worth saving for pensions. That will cause huge difficulties in the future. Young people today say, “What’s the point of doing that? Look at what’s happened to others, like my granny. That’s what is likely to happen to me.” Reports such as one today saying that the pension age is likely to go up yet again, and young people may now be working into their 70s before getting a pension, continue to undermine confidence in pension provision. We will face a huge problem in the future if we continue in this way.

I was an MP when we tried to persuade the last Labour Government to do something about this issue, and they turned their face against that and refused to do anything. I acknowledge that the coalition Government and the current Government have grasped the thistle to some extent, and have made some money available. They must be given credit for that, but of course it took a report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling for compensation, and she concluded that the state of the public finances was “a relevant consideration”, which I suppose is why we are still here today.

Part of the difficulty is that there is a huge difference between the amount sought by the action group and the sum the Government say was actually lost. There is no real agreement as to what the total losses are. In a sense, the Government came down in the middle with a figure of £1.5 billion, and in coming to that figure cited the state of the public finances. It is disappointing that the Minister stated in his letter to the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) of 30 January, which was circulated to us:

“The announcement was clear that the funding available to the Payment Scheme was not a fixed amount of £1.5 billion but rather that up to £1.5 billion would be made available.”

Should we take that as confirmation that the Government have no intention of even putting the remainder of that amount—about £140 million, I understand—towards the plight of those who have lost out? To be frank with the Minister, given the Government’s previous record, that seems rather small minded and mean, and it undermines the Government’s commitment, which they have shown previously, to tackle this matter.

EMAG argues that the policyholders’ pension savings, carefully accumulated over decades, should be safeguarded in exactly the same way as funds deposited in banks and building societies. They have a point, although they should not stretch it too far, as there is a limit on those funds and it is not an exact analogy. But it is also worth recording that, in her response to the Government scheme, the ombudsman stated:

“I am unable to conclude that the Government’s proposals comply with the recommendation for the establishment of a compensation scheme which I made in my report.”

Such comments will continue until the Government do something to address the continuing sense of injustice.

Others have said that Equitable Life was touted as a long-established, steady company, and that small business people and the self-employed were encouraged to invest their pension savings in it. When I was a practising solicitor—many years ago now—Equitable Life was considered one of the best investments, which is why so many people were encouraged to go into it. Increasingly, however, we are being encouraged to invest in pension provision to augment our state pensions, and people will find it difficult to have confidence in any pension company while this issue remains unresolved. It is also clear that fewer than half of new pensioners will receive the whole of the new single tier pension when it is introduced, so this issue is becoming more and more important.

The fact that pensioners now have much greater freedom to access their pension savings will also greatly alter the pension landscape and the attitude of savers towards pensions, but it could also make it more difficult for companies’ investment strategies. It is doubly imperative in this new environment that there is confidence in the stability and worth of pension investment. Pension investment is not the same as putting money in a bank or building society; as we know, it depends on fluctuations in the market and the type of investment made.

[Robert Courts]

The hon. Gentleman is making many powerful points. He has mentioned confidence. Does he agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that, having encouraged members of the public to do the right thing and invest in what was seen as a secure and safe scheme, there is a danger that a precedent could now be set and that those people could now decide that investing in a pension would not give them safety or security in retirement? Does he also agree that the unfairness that that creates is unhelpful to the pensions industry as a whole?

[Mike Weir]

Indeed it is. That is the point that I was making.

Some of us are now getting to the age at which we are beginning to think seriously about what our pensions will bring us—it is going to hit us pretty shortly—but I have children who are in their 20s, and this is a very long-term investment for people in their 20s and 30s. Young people today who look at the WASPI women or at Equitable Life pensioners will not have the same confidence that people of my generation might have had that they are putting aside savings to augment their state pension. The state pension is changing, and we are looking at different ways in which people will invest for the future, such as auto-enrolment. All these things require confidence, but that confidence has been undermined by continuing scandals such as Equitable Life.

The Government have to look at the bigger picture, rather than simply looking at Equitable Life in isolation. They have to look at how we can get over this hump and ensure that all young people make provision for the future. If we do not do that, a much bigger problem will be coming over the horizon when those young people get older, having made no provision because they lacked confidence in the system. What are we going to do then? The fall-backs that exist today will no longer be there for them. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to go back to the Chancellor and say, “Look at the bigger picture. Look at how we are dealing with pensions. How can we get confidence back?” If we do not do this, the picture will get even worse later.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a point I should have made earlier. It is recognised that parents often need to make financial provision for their children, and that we are using some of the money that we have to make that happen, yet some Equitable Life policyholders have told me that they are unable to do that. Has the hon. Gentleman come across similar cases?

[Mike Weir]

I have a daughter who is now into her third university degree, so I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Yes, parents are having to use their own money to help out their children, and that can cut down the amount that will be available to them in the future. That is a decision that they have to make, however; it is a slightly different issue. The bigger issue is the future. Many young people today are not earning enough money, and many have been landed with large debts following their university degrees. That, and the lack of confidence in the system, will have an impact on their ability to save for a pension. I think I have gone on long enough now, so I will end on that point.

Budget Resolutions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, that is a great worry to me, as it is to him and to many others. It is about not only the system’s efficiency, but its effectiveness and ability to make the right kinds of decisions in complex individual cases. I have constituents who have been here for many years but are finding it difficult to get various applications through.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point, as did the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). This is not just about individuals. There will be an impact on the local economy of areas such as mine that rely on migrant labour for fruit picking and will face great difficulties if that labour is not available. There are huge economic consequences in addition to the personal consequences.

[Roger Mullin]

That is precisely my point. What was seen as a political decision to exit the EU immediately has consequences for individuals whom we value in our communities. That has implications for the labour market, and the disruption of the labour market has economic consequences. We cannot get away from the fact that an array of influences are coming to bear due to Brexit, but the Chancellor thought that the sensible approach was to utterly ignore them. We also need to pay attention to other matters connected to Brexit. As far as I am aware, the Chancellor said absolutely nothing about how he was going to fill the funding gaps for rural communities, the agricultural sector or university research. Everybody is uncertain about those gaps. How will the Government address them in general? They have already said that they will fill the gap in one or two small instances, but there is no general response. That is another disruption that the Government are not addressing.

Thirdly, whereas the Treasury and the OBR can offer only snapshots of the economy at different times, people who may call themselves part of the classical economic tradition would say that an important feature of the real world is how the market economy operates, which is based on a process of incessant change and growth. Although the Government talk about some aspects of that, such as the importance of research and development and of stimulating innovation, not nearly enough regard has been paid to the importance of how we are to stimulate innovation and, through that process, stimulate growth in the economy.

There are practical implications of that view of looking at things. Policies in recent years—near-zero interest rates from central banks and austerity from Governments—have specifically protected one group of people while harming everyone else. They have boosted the asset prices of the wealthy while destroying the savings pool of those with modest amounts in the bank. The policies harm pensions and penalise savers. They represent everything that classical economists have opposed. Paradoxically, they are the antithesis of the free market and a further illustration of what David Stockman calls “crony capitalism”. It is not hard to find the human embodiment of crony capitalism in this House.

I will now comment on some of the measures. I read an article in the Financial Times by Sir Nicholas Macpherson a few days ago—[Interruption.] He is a friend of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). Sir Nicholas said that Budgets were supposed to be about tax. For perfectly reasonable historical reasons, the United Kingdom has developed an enormously complicated tax system over hundreds of years. When I talked to a Treasury official some weeks ago, he told me that, so far, he had found more than 1,100 tax reliefs in the system. Every tax relief provides an opportunity for a loophole, so it is perhaps not surprising that estimates of the tax gap vary between £36 billion and £70 billion.

Given the changing nature of society, should our tax system and some of our approaches to tax rely on what happened 150 years ago or more? Surely the time will soon come when we have to look systematically at the entire tax system with a view of not just simplifying it, but making it fit for purpose for the type of economy and labour market that we have today. I am therefore disappointed that there was no reference to that in the Budget.

We have already heard excellent points about the problem facing the self-employed, so I will not dwell too long on that, but there is one area in which the Government could help. For 30-odd years before I entered Parliament, I ran small research companies and the like. In the last few years before I entered Parliament, I decided that I was going to take life a bit easier—some chance—so I stopped running a limited company and simply proceeded, with associates and individuals, by picking the jobs that I found interesting and wanted to do. I applied for a job with the Government, but they said that I could not be considered for it unless I became a limited company. The UK Government’s procurement processes therefore encourage people to do what the Budget says the Government do not want them to do. If we are to move down the route of sorting out this part of the economy, as the Government would see it, might it be a good idea for them to practise what they preach by sorting out their own procurement policy?

Too often in this House we hear the Government making policy changes and announcements in which they almost assume that every labour market is like an inner city. When I heard what the Government were doing on self-employment, my thoughts did not immediately go to how labour markets operate in Glasgow or the City of London; I thought about my friend in Skye and some of my friends in the highlands who have no choice but to rely on self-employment. They cannot choose to work for corporations that do not exist. They are what might be called “necessity entrepreneurs”, and they do not work in just one sector. They have to job around and they undertake lengthy travel. They also have absolutely none of the security that people in employment have. The Government think it is a good idea to burden those people all of a sudden, but I cannot see how on earth their chosen proposal will give any support to local economies the length and breadth of this country. We need much more effective analysis of those matters.

Of course, being a Scot, I am particularly concerned about the duty on whisky. Given the state that the Government are in, and given what we face in the future, if there was ever a bad time to make it more expensive to buy whisky, this is it. Surely we do not want to start by penalising one of the most effective products produced in this land that is not only essential to the Scottish economy, but makes a massive contribution to the economy of the whole United Kingdom.

Many Members want to take part in this debate, so I will finish by returning to a group I mentioned earlier. At its heart, the economy is a collective human endeavour. We cannot understand economics abstractly; we have to understand it in terms of its effect on individuals, families and communities. If ever there was an example of how the Government have departed from the genuine concern for humanity that should be at the centre of our concerns about the economy, it is surely their malicious treatment of the WASPI women. We have a long way to go.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

Indeed. That brings us to the nub of the issue: the imbalance in power between an individual small business and a bank.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I have a constituent in a similar situation to the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) is right to talk about an imbalance. My constituent’s business was put under by the Royal Bank of Scotland. He found that taking legal action was almost impossible, because RBS, bailed out by the taxpayer, was in a much stronger financial position than he was. My hon. Friend’s suggestion of an alternative mechanism gives at least a real chance for these businesses to take on the massive banks, which the public have bailed out.

[George Kerevan]

Indeed. It is clear in Scotland—it might be true of other parts of the UK—that the major banks have signed up many solicitors, making it almost impossible for someone to find a lawyer to represent them, even if they want to take action against a bank, difficult as that would be, given the financial ability they wield in court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend and his local council have been at the forefront of calling for this major reform of local government finance, which is, of course, now being undertaken across the whole country. I can confirm that London will be moving ahead of many other areas and we will start the retention of business rates in local areas from April 2017.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

T7. The eye-watering costs of the proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C will put public finance at risk, as well as the strike price, pushing up energy bills for businesses and consumers. Will the Chancellor redirect this investment to cleaner, safer and cheaper energy sources such as renewables and carbon capture and storage?

[Mr Osborne]

The first thing I would say is that there were those remarkable figures recently showing that 25% of UK electricity generation is now from renewable energy. That is second only to Germany and is an amazing transformation in our energy supply under this Conservative leadership. Secondly, we need to renew the next generation of nuclear power stations, starting with Hinkley Point, but the deal we have signed makes sure that taxpayers are not exposed to the construction risk.

Equitable Life

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a somewhat novel experience for me, as a Scottish National party Member, to stand up to support a motion that starts by saying

“this House congratulates the Government”.

However, I do so because this matter has been dragging on for a large number of years. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) said that he had been dealing with this for six years. I was first elected to this House in 2001, and I have been talking about it for coming up to 15 years now. This all started when the policyholders won their case before the House of Lords in 2000, so they have been fighting this for 16 years. Many Administrations refused to take it seriously, but I give the coalition Government credit for finally grasping the nettle and introducing a scheme. We may not agree with all the terms of the scheme, but that Government did do something about this. I see from a note I received from the Library that it appears that, when the scheme closed on 31 December, some 125,000 policyholders had not come forward to submit a claim. That is a large number of people who have not even got any money out of the existing scheme.

It took a report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling on compensation, and I suppose the reason we are still debating it today was her conclusion:

“the diversion of scarce public resources is a relevant consideration which should be taken into account and weighed in the balance along with other relevant considerations”.

In introducing this debate, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that the agreed sum outstanding was some £2.5 billion, but it is not entirely straightforward to see exactly what sum is required to put the policyholders back to where they would have been in terms of the relative loss. I have seen figures of up to £5 billion and as low as £500 million in this regard. First, we have to be clear exactly what the figure is. The Government, policyholders and the Equitable Members Action Group must agree what the figure is, because at the moment a large range of figures are being talked about.

The action group has consistently campaigned for full compensation. It is a disgrace that people have got less than a quarter of what they should have received, all because of the Treasury. That is where I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said that the Government stand behind the regulator, as in this case the Treasury was the regulator for the relevant period during the 1990s. The Government have a direct responsibility for what went wrong in this case, which is why compensation is due. As has been pointed out, many policyholders have received compensation amounting to only about 22% of the losses.

Over the years, like many Members, constituents, many of them elderly, have come to me about this matter. Sadly, time has whittled down their numbers. One constituent, a Mrs Smith from Arbroath, told me the other week that she did everything she should have done. She made provision for what she expected to be a relatively good retirement not reliant on Government funds, but she was robbed of it because of a regulatory failure. Equitable Life was touted as a long-established, steady company. I used to be a practising solicitor and remember it well—not that I ever put any money into it, thankfully—but no one then realised the problem lurking below the surface.

The Government need to grasp the point about what happens from hereon in. We are now asking people to make greater provision for their own pensions, but that will work only if people are confident they will get the pension they are investing in. Equitable Life and other such scandals have greatly undermined that confidence. We need to show that when something goes wrong, through the fault of the Government, compensation will be available to put people in the position they would have been in. If we do not, the danger is that people will not be convinced to invest in the new pension landscape. In the future, the Government might face a much higher bill, because if we do not encourage people to invest in their own pensions, the state will inevitably have to step in. I urge the Minister to reconsider, given the confusion about the figure.

Tax Credits

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

It is worth saying, first, that I hope that the Labour party is looking to work with the SNP wherever possible to oppose cuts that are going to impact on low-income families. I make my contribution today, as far as possible, in the interests of consensus. We need to work together effectively to oppose what is coming down the line from this Conservative Government. On the issue of tax-raising powers, the fiscal framework has not been agreed. We have no idea what might be coming forward and no idea whether it will be possible to use these powers to raise taxes in the way suggested. I thus think that the right hon. Gentleman introduces an element of obfuscation when he uses that example. The Library briefing shows that we will still see the budget balanced on the backs of lower-income households.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will remind the House that the Scottish Government have already spent £100 million in mitigating other attacks on the poor from this Government.

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely—£100 million on the bedroom tax and a further £40 million ensuring that the council tax cuts did not affect low-income households in Scotland in the way they did in England. I hope that, after today, Labour will return to where it was earlier this week when it stood side by side with the SNP in opposing Tory cuts.

The SNP will oppose these ideological, regressive and utterly punitive tax credit cuts with every opportunity open to us—and we do so again today—because we realise the damage caused to family incomes, levels of poverty and child poverty in these isles and to social cohesion in every community in Scotland. The Scottish Government analysis, discussed today at First Minister’s Question Time in the Scottish Parliament, shows that 250,000 households in Scotland will lose, on average, £1,500 from April. Thereafter, when the all the changes are fully implemented, that could rise to an average of £3,000 per household. These changes are fundamentally regressive: they disproportionately target those in low-income households and punish them on account of this Government’s ideological obsession with austerity.

For our part, the SNP stood on a manifesto that was fundamentally anti-austerity and that plotted a more responsible path for bringing down the deficit. We argued for a 0.5% increase in spending per year for this Parliament, which would have released £140 billion in total to invest in capital projects and other measures to narrow income inequalities. Our plan would have brought the budget deficit down to 2% by the end of this Parliament, while protecting public services at the same time—a far more measured and reasonable way to balance the books. Our plan was backed by an IMF report from June this year, which highlighted that reducing income inequality not only leads to reduced poverty, but boosts growth. By extension, the policy of cutting tax credits and thereby increasing income inequality will drive more of our citizens into poverty. It is, in fact, going to harm growth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Regulations that are burdensome and do not achieve their objective do nothing to help productivity; they hold businesses back. That is why it is right that for every new regulation we bring in, two are taken out.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy. I can report to the House that the latest inflation figures show that consumer prices index inflation is at 0.1%, which is good news for working families. Inflation is close to an all-time low, and wages are growing strongly, which is further proof that our long-term economic plan is working.

[Mike Weir]

I thank the Chancellor for that response. However, one of his responsibilities is to ensure that the correct tax is paid. Given that there is huge public support for a Bill to tackle tax dodging, will he introduce such a measure in this Parliament to deal with the tax avoidance by UK companies both in the UK and in developing countries?

[Mr Osborne]

Every single Finance Bill we have introduced has been about tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance. Indeed we have also introduced into this country the diverted profits tax—almost a first in the world—which is tackling those international businesses that move their profits offshore to avoid tax. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in the Budget we will take further action to clamp down on avoidance and evasion.

Amendment of the Law

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The promise was not to abolish tuition fees, but to not increase them. We did increase them and that was a matter of regret.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I speak as a representative of the one party in this House that has not gone back on its promise on tuition fees. There are no tuition fees in Scotland. The Secretary of State talks about the costs of the policy, but was not one of the difficulties in the recession the huge amount of personal borrowing? Students are now leaving university owing a fortune because of tuition fees and the other costs of their studies. How will that work through the economy in the future?

[Vince Cable]

I was hoping that we would have an intervention from the Scottish nationalists, because they illustrate better than anybody else the stupidity of this policy. There have not been tuition fees in Scotland and the quality of university education is declining because there is less resource. The worst thing of all in Scotland is that in order to maintain this policy, they have raided the budgets of further education colleges, taking money from working-class children in Scotland to finance middle-class undergraduates. That is a very retrograde policy. If anybody wants to see where Labour’s policy will lead, they should indeed go to Scotland.

Let me turn to the bigger question of inequality, because many of the accusations that are made by the Opposition relate to the question of whether we have become a more unequal society. It is certainly true that if we talk about the top 1%, there is extreme wealth. Some of it—that created by entrepreneurs and risk takers—is totally understandable in a free-enterprise society, but much of it is not. That problem is shared across the world. It is true of the top 1% in social democratic Scandinavia and in communist China. These people can move, and they can move in and out of our country. It is to the credit of the Chancellor that he was able to say yesterday that the share of income tax that is paid by the top 1% has risen under this Government from 25% to 27%.

Of course, there is one way in which the ultra-rich in society can be made to pay that they cannot run away from, and that is by targeting high-value property. That is one area where my party has common ground with the Labour party.

If we take the wider issue of income distribution and the effects of austerity, the evidence is clear. People in the top 10% or 20% have contributed more than average in cash or percentage terms to the austerity programme and deficit reduction. For an objective measure of inequality, we should look to bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is totally independent and has been a thorn in the side of successive Governments. It has done an analysis of income inequality before and after this Government, looking at the basic Gini coefficient, and found that inequality in income is lower today than in 2007-08. If one digs into the figures a little further, one finds that the numbers depend on which consumer index is applied. However, even if one applies different consumer indices, the IFS analysis shows that, at the very worst, income inequality is no worse under this Government than it was under the Labour Government. I hope that when we hear the righteous indignation in future, the basic facts about this matter will be properly understood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) who is the authentic voice of Conservatism in this place, and blue in tooth and claw. He will be sorely missed, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do in the future—somehow I cannot see him retiring quietly to a rocking chair.

When I listened to the Business Secretary introducing this debate, at times I wondered which Budget he was talking about since he seemed to flip between the Budget presented by the Chancellor yesterday, and the fantasy Budget presented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury this morning, and it was a bit difficult to follow his line of thinking. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), he spoke about possible changes in banking and protection for the “last bank in the village”, as he put it, but I am afraid that in many communities that ship has long since sailed.

Banks have been pulling out of rural communities for many years, and substantial communities in my constituency no longer have a bank. Indeed, the Royal Bank of Scotland recently closed a branch and when questioned about it said, “Well you can use the post office”. Unfortunately, the Post Office is also undergoing a procedure at the moment. There may no longer be closure programmes, but many post offices are “changing”—or rather closing—and business is being transferred to other local businesses. In many ways I see the logic of that from its point of view, but it means that many businesses are now running the “post office local model”, which is a much reduced service. In many communities in my constituency, including substantial communities, that is the only post office service left—a counter in another business, which is a small shop or, as in one case, a card and paper shop. That does not give confidence in the service—notwithstanding the service that such shops can provide and the extent they go to—especially for business banking, and that needs to be looked at.

If we contact any of our major banks, they will try to get us to go online and work through the computer. That is fine, but many of our elderly people cannot do that, and many people with small businesses do not want to invest in the extra equipment. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), there is also a serious problem with broadband provision in many parts of our country.

In my constituency many of the towns now have a good broadband service that has been upgraded, but one does not have to go far outside the town for it to disappear altogether. Part of the reason for that is that many small exchanges that serve the country in village areas desperately need upgrading and can no longer take any more broadband lines. I have had situations where people have moved house, cancelled their broadband contract, and when they went to get a contract for their new house they were told they could not get one any more because the line they used had been allocated to someone else.

The Budget has missed a huge opportunity to invest in that infrastructure for the future. If we are to be a successful nation and increase business, we need the infrastructure to do that. I have talked often in the House about a rural area such as mine where many businesses are taking advantage of the internet where they can. It is not always a bad thing. A business in a rural area can get a niche market, survive on the internet and have quite a good business, but it needs an internet connection, good broadband, and a good postal service to deliver the goods to the rest of the country.

Since the privatisation of Royal Mail we have seen an erosion of that service in some parts of the country. In some parts of Scotland, as I am sure is the case in other parts of the country, it has announced that it will not be picking up so often from post boxes—there might be one pick-up first thing in the morning, but nothing else for the rest of the day. That is hopeless for a business. Furthermore, many of the new post office locals do not have sufficient room for proper business mail to be left for Royal Mail to pick up. Again, that was a missed opportunity in the Budget.

Unfortunately, the real message of the Budget is that massive cuts are coming our way, which will have a terrible impact on many of our local communities and businesses. The OBR has described the coming years as a rollercoaster for public expenditure and said it will return the level of Government expenditure to that of 1964. This morning, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who presumably had a hand in writing the Budget, as well as his alternative Budget, said it would take us back to the era of “Cathy Come Home”. That film brought home to many people the extent of the housing crisis in the 1960s, but that housing crisis is coming back to haunt many of our communities.

Many Members have talked about the need to build more houses, and I entirely agree, but I was concerned that the only specific announcement about this in the Budget was the new ISA to help get younger people on the housing ladder. That is good news for those who can afford to put money into an ISA, and I am sure that well-off parents around the country will be preparing to open such accounts for their children, but it is just another variation on the bank of mum and dad and does nothing to help the many young people who can only dream of renting their own home, let alone owning one.

The only boost to local businesses is likely to be for estate agents, as this measure fuels a housing bubble in our cities and communities—houses are expensive all over the country. If we are to tackle the housing crisis, we need a boost to build new affordable homes and homes for rent. Not only would that give young people a real chance to get a home of their own without needing well-off parents to finance it, but it would give a boost to local economies by providing work for those who build the homes and the businesses supplying the needs of new home owners.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) commented on why we had reached this situation. In Scotland, we are now building new homes and have removed the right to buy introduced by the last Tory Government. Whatever people thought of the policy at the time, it is no longer appropriate for the current market because it acts as a disincentive to councils to build new houses—because they might have to sell them off fairly quickly at reduced rates. In Scotland, new houses for rent are being built for the first time in many years. When I read the leaks of the proposed Budget, I was concerned at the suggestion that the Chancellor would introduce a new right to buy for housing associations. I think we should all be grateful that he did not do that, although it would not have applied in Scotland anyway, since we have taken a different route.

Many of the cuts, however, will make things much worse for our young people. Many people, particularly under-25s, will no longer be able to get housing benefit and will be forced to continue to live with their parents, but in many cases, either that will not be practical or for some other reason they will not be able to do it, and they will end up sofa surfing with friends and relatives. It is all very easy, as Government all too often seem to do, to announce crackdowns on welfare and go for cheap headlines in the more rabid tabloids. As we all know, however, in reality many of those in receipt of benefits are working, and the benefits are not their income but top up the income they receive from their employment. In my constituency, on the latest figures, the unemployment rate is 2.5%. On the face of it, that is excellent news, but it is also a low-wage economy, and that is the difficulty. Many people rely on benefits to top up their income and enable them to live.

Many of us will be spending more hours than is healthy over the next few weeks knocking on constituents’ doors, and I am sure that many have had the same experience as me of finding it difficult to find people in, mainly because so many work long hours, split shifts or more than one job to make ends meet. That is the reality of modern Britain, with so many people still relying on food banks to feed their families.

The assault on the welfare state has a dramatic effect on our local businesses. Those who are less well off will tend to spend their money—and to spend it in local businesses. Cuts not only attack those on benefits, but remove a substantial amount of money from local economies, hitting businesses. Is it any wonder that so many businesses on our high streets are closing?

In Scotland, the Government have made determined efforts to halt the decline in small businesses with policies such as the business bonus scheme, which has abolished or reduced business rates for many small businesses. The Chancellor announced a scheme for business rates retention, but the Scottish Government introduced such a scheme in Scotland back in 2011. These schemes help, but more needs to be done to boost local businesses.

We already know that some of the poorest in society will bear the brunt of the misery of the austerity programme. The proportion of tax cuts to tax rises has moved from 4:1 to 9:1, and this will have a dramatic effect on many households. As others have said, we do not yet know the details of the coming cuts and benefits, but this is all money being sucked out of our local economies and will impact directly on our local businesses.

Before I finish, let me say that it is not all bad news. I welcome the Government’s changes to North sea oil taxation. I called for it, the Scottish Government called for it, and there is widespread support for it across all parties. This industry is going through a downturn at the moment—not for the first time, and I dare say it will not be for the last. It is worth noting that the reduction in the supplementary charge will take us back to the position in 2011, when the decision to increase it, taken without consultation with the industry, was hugely damaging.

On a more positive note, the Bank of Scotland did an oil survey last week, showing that 90% of firms are optimistic about the future. Many of them were looking to diversify into such things as renewables. Here, again, however, the Government have missed the chance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Knowsley has had the worst cuts in Government grant this year, and over the period of this Government the amount of Government grant per household in Knowsley will have been reduced by £1,500, yet it is one of the poorest, most deprived local authorities in the area.

The main point I want to make is to do with economic growth and the structural problems in our economy. The key point is that we have an unbalanced economy; economic growth is overly dependent on asset inflation and consumer demand. As a consequence, over recent decades the balance has shifted away from manufacturing and towards the service and retail sectors. This is well illustrated by the decline in manufacturing as a proportion of gross domestic product. In 1970, manufacturing accounted for about 30% of GDP, but in the intervening period it has declined to some 10%. For an area such as Knowsley, which has a strong manufacturing base, that is bad news.

There is of course a complex set of reasons for that, but two factors are specifically relevant, the first of which is housing policy and our national obsession with owner-occupation, which distorts any attempt to have a rational housing policy. In the north-west, between 1997 and 2013, average house prices increased from £51,000 to £109,000, yet in the same period wages increased from £309 a week to just £460 a week. In the same period, local authority waiting lists have grown by more than 90%. So, despite the various incentives for owner-occupiers, saving for a deposit and securing a mortgage is becoming an increasingly impossible goal.

I welcome the Chancellor’s introduction in the Budget statement of a new Help to Buy ISA, which will help people to save towards a deposit. Superficially, that is an attractive way to help them get a foot on the property ladder, but the real problem is that it will not help those on lower incomes. A first-time buyer currently needs an income of about £36,000 a year, which is way beyond what many of my constituents earn, so even with that scheme, they will not be able to get on the property ladder.

I am pleased that my party is committed to working towards a goal of building 200,000 homes a year over the next five years. Welcome though that is, it still will not make up the shortfall. Although the sale of council houses—the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) referred to this; I may have misunderstood him—is a good thing from the point of view of the individual buyer, is it good public policy? The National Housing Federation has called for a review of that policy, which I support. We need to know how that policy will contribute to the building of more properties, which needs to happen if we are to bring prices down.

[Mr Weir]

For the avoidance of doubt, I was making the point that the right to buy caused the sale of many council houses and new ones were not being built to replace them. The removal of the right to buy in Scotland has meant that we are now building new houses for the first time in many years.

[Mr Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but my point is that, even if we are substituting those houses with new ones, we are still not building enough additional properties, net, to solve the problem.

The Chancellor sees himself as the champion of devolution and the northern powerhouse, and that is a fair claim for him to make. I am very much in favour of greater devolution and the development of city regions, and there are many problems in our city region that need to be addressed. Time forbids me to go into them all, but, for example, we need to get 42,000 more people into employment and an increase in income of about £1,700 per head if we are to close the gap between us and the UK average. The Chancellor said that in his view there is no one-size-fits-all solution to leadership for city regions, yet the evidence of Manchester suggests that there is a favoured option—an elected mayor.

The key to unlocking more resources and powers appears to involve agreeing to have an elected mayor. Regardless of my views on elected mayors, there is no consensus on this on Merseyside. I do not think it should be for the Government to insist on people having one thing before they can get another. There should be a referendum so that the people can have their say on the matter. I hope that progress on devolution to city regions will not be sacrificed purely on the basis that there is no consensus on an elected mayor for the Liverpool city region.

Tourism Industry and VAT

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on bringing forward this issue.

I have been raising this matter for more than a decade. I first asked a question about golf tourism in 2004, at which time I represented the magnificent golf course at Carnoustie—sadly, I no longer represent it, due to boundary changes. I had no luck with the Chancellor at the time, and I have had no luck with Chancellors since.

Tourism is a vital part of Angus’s local economy. According to the Government’s official labour market statistics, tourism-related jobs account for a higher percentage of the workforce in Angus than the UK and Scottish averages, which is not surprising, given the wonderful mountain glens and coastal areas that we enjoy. Many other rural areas across all parts of the United Kingdom rely heavily on such jobs. The current campaign has a lot of support in Scotland, including from the Scottish Tourism Alliance.

Unlike many other parts of the European Union, there is currently no provision in the UK for charging a lower rate of VAT for tourism-related businesses, yet there is nothing to prevent the Government from doing so. For example, it has been done for hotel accommodation in 24 of the 28 European Union states, including Germany and France. The factsheet of the Cut Tourism VAT campaign shows that the UK has the second highest rate of VAT on hotel accommodation. It is exceeded only by Denmark, and it is equal to Slovenia, while Luxembourg’s rate is 3%, and Portugal, which is a major tourist destination, has a rate of 6%. Tourism businesses are fighting hard to retain business against cheaper destinations, and those lower rates give continental destinations a considerable advantage over businesses in the UK.

The 2013 World Economic Forum report on travel and transportation ranked the UK 138th out of 140 countries on the basis of price competitiveness. The VisitBritain website laments Britain’s lack of competitiveness for visitors from the USA, Australia, Canada, Germany, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. It showed that Britain has a clear competitive weakness in terms of value for money and expense. Ratings of holidays in Britain were below almost every major European destination for value and expense for both short and long-haul visitors. Britain was the only destination to have a negative balance, in terms of expense, compared with expectations.

The Government have not always been averse to cutting VAT on selective tourism-related operations. In the 2012 Budget, they cut the VAT charge on ski lifts, which was a welcome change—especially for businesses in the constituency of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which were the main beneficiaries. That vividly illustrates that it can be done and that it need not apply only to accommodation facilities.

Ireland’s 9% rate applies to facilities for taking part in sporting activities, including green fees charged for golf and subscriptions charged by non-member-owned golf clubs. A rate of that kind would be a boost for places such as Carnoustie. It puts the Irish at a competitive advantage, compared with the wonderful golf clubs in Scotland and other parts of the UK. In addition to that 9% rate, for some time Ireland had a 13.5% rate on some other services, including short-term car hire and tour guide services, which shows that a multitude of things can be done to assist tourism businesses.

The Government’s 2011 tourism strategy stated that they aimed to generate 4 million extra visitors by 2015. It said:

“The increase in overseas visitors would bring an extra £2 billion worth of visitor spend and help to create 50,000 new jobs across the country over that period, securing tourism’s place as one of Britain’s biggest industries.”

I struggle to see how the GREAT campaign and simplifying visa applications for Chinese visitors, which seems to be all that has been done so far, could in isolation do anything to achieve those objectives. However, a cut in VAT would have a significant impact.

Clearly, there is a huge opportunity to increase employment by promoting tourism. One of the most effective ways of doing that is to cut VAT on tourism businesses, which is well within the Government’s power.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong environmental argument for reducing tourism VAT? It would encourage more people to take domestic holidays in the UK, not just in Scotland, but in lovely Brighton Pavilion.

[Mr Weir]

I am sure that is the case. The hon. Lady can develop that argument if she catches the Chair’s eye.

It is not cheap to holiday in many areas of the UK. The standard rate of VAT puts our tourism businesses at a considerable disadvantage when competing with other parts of Europe. An increase in visitors would not only help tourism businesses, but bring much-needed income into many other businesses in the rural economy. The Republic of Ireland’s 9% rate—its standard rate is 24%—is calculated to have boosted the Irish economy by about €40 million and created between 5,600 and 35,000 jobs, depending on how the figure is calculated. The Irish Minister for Finance claimed in his Budget speech that it created 15,000 jobs. Various pieces of research have shown that a similar—perhaps a greater—effect could be achieved here, including Professor Blake’s work, which has already been referred to.

A VAT cut would reduce the Treasury’s income in the short term, but it would generate a stimulus that created a large number of jobs and increased businesses directly and indirectly. It could lead to a significant, long-term increase in income that would have a positive effect on the whole economy. Research suggests that up to 123,000 jobs could be created in the UK, which could contribute a surplus to the Treasury of £3.9 billion over 10 years. Additional spending and growth in tourism and the wider economy could produce GDP gains of up to £4 billion per year.

The Irish experience suggests that the cost per job created by the VAT cut is about €23,000. That is a competitive rate for creating jobs—certainly, in rural areas of the UK. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to look positively at cutting VAT to give a much-needed boost to our rural economies.

Equitable Life

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a somewhat novel, perhaps unique, experience for me to be speaking in support of a motion that begins:

“this House congratulates the Government”.

However, credit where credit is due. Many of us raised this issue consistently with the previous Administration, who refused point blank to take any responsibility for the regulatory failures that led to the disastrous situation at Equitable Life, despite the fact that their own report by Lord Penrose pointed clearly to the regulatory failures in this case. This Government have grasped the nettle and introduced a scheme that has given some relief to many thousands of policyholders who have lost out.

Interestingly, in the last update on the scheme issued by the Treasury, it appears that some 160,000 policyholders have not come forward to submit a claim. A large number of people have still not taken advantage of the help that is offered at the moment, and we should continue to urge them to come forward. It took the report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling on compensation, and I suppose the reason we are still debating it today was her conclusion that

“the diversion of scarce public resources is a relevant consideration which should be taken into account and weighed in the balance along with other relevant considerations”.

Despite what the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, there is a huge difference between the amount sought by the action group, which is about £5 billion, and the amount originally proposed by the Government, which was as little as £500 million. EMAG’s website quotes two vastly different figures, and the Government came down in the middle with a figure of £1.5 billion. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said—we need to deal with the issue of compensation—but first we have to negotiate the sums involved.

The action group has consistently campaigned for full compensation. Its members thought it unfair that “affordability constraints”, as the Government put it, meant they did not get the full compensation to which they were entitled and that they only received 25% of the full amount. Its paper calls it a double injustice that Equitable pensioners should not only bear the cost of the Treasury’s inability to regulate Equitable Life in the 1990s, but be denied the full compensation owed to them because the Government’s inability to regulate the banking sector

“blew a hole in Government finances”.

There is some justice to that.

As the action group points out, policyholders have received compensation amounting to only 22.4% of their losses, and it argues that people’s pension savings, carefully accumulated over decades, should be safeguarded in exactly the same way as funds deposited in banks and building societies, but that is a dangerous argument to make, because funds protected in banks and building societies are subject to a maximum, so it is not complete protection.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I am sure that like all right hon. and hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman and I have constituents affected by this matter, and what they fear most is uncertainty. Mr and Mrs O’Meagher, who are 80 and live in my constituency, have to travel to London so that Mrs O’Meagher can give music lessons in order to top up their income, but they cannot continue to do that, and with their losses from Equitable Life, they see their life in terrible trouble.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I agree that this matter needs to be tackled—I shall say something about that shortly. In a follow- up report, the ombudsman was unable to conclude that the Government’s proposals complied with her recommendations for the establishment of a compensation scheme. Even the ombudsman says that more needs to be done.

Like most Members, I had many Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency, and I have had a considerable postbag on the issue from the outset. Many of the policyholders were elderly, and sadly some have died as the saga has ground on, but there remains a great sense of injustice among those still living. Equitable Life was touted as a long-established steady company —when I was a practising solicitor, it was seen as a gold-standard company. No one realised the problem lurking below the surface.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Many solicitors told their clients that they themselves had their pensions with Equitable Life and recommended it.

[Mr Weir]

I never had my pension with Equitable Life, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Many solicitors, accountants and other professionals invested in Equitable Life. It was popular with financial advisers because it was seen as a safe, steady company, but it turned out not to be, and people lost a lot of money because it was not properly regulated.

The Government need to consider future pension provision. Increasingly, we are being urged to invest in pension provision to augment our state pensions, and with the recent revelations that less than half of new pensioners will receive the whole new single-tier pension when it is introduced next year, that is more relevant than ever. The new rules granting much greater freedom for pension holders to access their pensions savings will greatly alter the pensions landscape and the attitude of savers towards pensions, but it might also make it more difficult for company investment strategies. It is imperative in this new environment that there is confidence in the stability and worth of pensions investment—it is not the same as putting money in a bank or building society, where the rate of interest is known, pitiful though it might be at present; it depends on fluctuations in the market and the type of investment made. Admittedly, there is no guaranteed return—there is always an element of risk—but for most people it is a major investment, so the risk should be as small as possible.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The public need confidence that the pension industry will be regulated properly, and in this case it obviously was not—the Government Actuary’s Department failed. Now that the public finances are in a better state, I think the Government should pay up in full, as recommended by the ombudsman, otherwise people will not have confidence in the future.

[Mr Weir]

I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says. We have to grasp the nettle because it is becoming ever more important that we have confidence in our pension provision. If we fail to give people that assurance, we risk them not having the confidence to invest in pensions, or taking their money out at the earliest opportunity, leading to even greater pressure on the public finances. Equitable Life remains a running sore, and so long as that is the case it risks damaging the whole industry and the attempts to encourage future pension savings. It was not simply a bad investment; the regulator failed to do its job, and that led to substantial losses.

We accepted that people were due compensation on the basis that the amount offered would be determined by the state of the public finances, but, as I said, there remains a gulf between the various amounts suggested. Before we come to any agreement, therefore, we must be clear about the amount involved, but it would be unwise to make it a party political issue just because there is an election around the corner—voters base their decision on many issues, including, in some cases, Equitable Life—but if the public finances are improving, of which some of us are less convinced than others, it is right that Equitable Life policyholders be considered anew. I urge the Minister to consider greater compensation.