Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Ian Blackford

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 17, line 31, at end insert ‘( ) a credit union;”.

It was terribly remiss of me not to say that, as a relatively new Member, I appreciate your helpfulness in the Committee, Mr Chope. Thank you very much for that.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) expressed concern that credit unions, which in many areas have an excellent community base, command huge levels of trust and are embedded in communities, are not, in effect, one of the account providers. Hon. Members who were present at Second Reading, or who no doubt assiduously read the report of the proceedings subsequently, will know that my hon. Friend made a number of very important points, including about qualification periods and the role of credit unions in the scheme. His arguments were listened to with attention and deserve fair consideration in relation to product flexibility, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gracefully agreed to meet him and the Association of British Credit Unions. Given that, I suspect that part of those discussions will be wide and may encompass the role of credit unions as providers, so I will not push the matter today. I just wanted to get the point across that we know that a meeting will be held and we hope that it will lead to constructive discussions and outcomes.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I will be brief in supporting the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bootle. Including credit unions as providers is critical, given the vast number of savers who use community credit unions to build up incomes for later life. Many credit unions set up local pay-in points such as shops or community centres and are increasingly important, given the withdrawal of the banks from many of the communities that credit unions represent. Therefore I wholly support the amendment.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

I echo the comments that have been made about credit unions. I am sure that many of us, on both sides of the Committee, have credit unions in our local area. There is an excellent one in Wandsworth, which I do what I can to support with publicity and signposting for constituents. I certainly place on the record our admiration for the credit union movement. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle, said, there will be a meeting. His colleague the hon. Member for Harrow West made a very good speech on Second Reading, and I am glad that that meeting will take place.

This debate is about who provides the Help to Save product. We were clear in our consultation that the options for delivery were to engage a single provider to guarantee nationwide provision, or to open the opportunity to offer the account to a wider range of providers on a voluntary basis. Although we are keen to explore the potential for credit unions to be involved and we of course acknowledge, as I have done, the valuable work that they do in our communities, we believe that they could not guarantee the nationwide provision of accounts that we seek.

Appointing National Savings and Investments as the scheme provider, which we have obviously made public, does involve our funding it for nationwide account provision, but it also means that we can work with a single provider to ensure that accounts are easily accessible to all eligible people, and it removes what could be the significant administrative and compliance costs associated with allowing a range of providers to offer accounts. Those could include costs associated with approving providers, checking for multiple account opening, checking and paying bonus claims from different providers and ensuring that each provider is operating the account correctly.

An option whereby we funded NS&I to provide accounts while we also allowed other providers to offer accounts on a voluntary basis would not provide value for money in this environment. A product such as this operates very much at the value-for-money end of the market. However, I am clear that we should not rule out the option for a range of providers, including credit unions, voluntarily to offer accounts in the future if that would deliver national coverage, and I reassure the Committee that the Bill has been drafted to accommodate different models of account provision, should that situation arise. In the meantime, we will work with the credit union sector to explore further options for Help to Save that work for it.

The hon. Member for Bootle has indicated that he will not seek to press the amendment to a vote, and with those points and that clarification in mind, I urge him to withdraw it.

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the Minister for those words. I think it would be inappropriate to take up the Committee’s time pursuing the amendment any further at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ian Blackford]

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 18, line 16, leave out “maximum” and insert “average”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 5.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Ian Blackford

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that in. I reaffirm the point: we have a responsibility and duty to ensure that we nail this issue down. The last thing any of us wants is, in three, four, five or six years’ time, to have to unravel and unpick a problem we could have avoided in the first place. That is our intention. The new clause is not a spoiler; it is a genuine attempt to get the issue into the open.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Should we not reflect on what experts in the industry have said? Zurich said there is a danger that the LISA

“would derail auto-enrolment and reverse”

the progress made

“in encouraging…people to save”

for later life. We heard evidence on Tuesday that nobody would be better off coming out of auto-enrolment and investing in a LISA.

Specifically on mis-selling, do we not run the risk of ending up with financial institutions marketing the LISA in a way that is to its detriment? I cannot put it any other way: that is creating the circumstances for mis-selling, and having shaped the Bill in this way, the Government are responsible for that.

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That reinforces the concern out there. If his point was completely off the wall, I would say so, but it is not. Millions of people out there have completely lost confidence in much of the sector. That is partly why, as was alluded to by the witnesses, if people are saving, they are often doing so in cash ISAs—because they are not sure about stocks and shares and other things. They therefore put their savings in products that give them a return of 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, or 1% if they are lucky. We must create an environment in which people save and feel confident that they will get a reasonable return on their investment, especially if that investment is for their later years. That is perfectly reasonable.

This is not a question of protecting people from themselves. We are saying, “If you want to buy a product, look it over, and we will set up mechanisms to enable that to happen.” In a sense, it is for the Government to decide whether they believe that what they are doing is enough.

The Work and Pensions Committee said:

“We recommend the Government develop a communications campaign that highlights the differences between the LISA and workplace pensions. It should make it clear that the LISA is not a pension and that, for employees who have been automatically enrolled, any decision to opt-out is likely to result in a worse outcome for their retirement.”

It is not just the Labour party, the Scottish Nationalists or anyone else saying that; a bipartisan Committee that includes Government Members is saying it. That is why I said that there is a little wisdom there that we should tap into.

Opposition Members are concerned that the Government are not doing enough to ensure that people who are considering opening a LISA are fully aware of all the pensions savings options available to them. New clause 2 would require the Government to legislate to ensure that all applicants for a lifetime ISA had to prove that they had received independent financial advice if they intended to use the ISA for retirement savings. If they had not received such advice, the provider of the lifetime ISA would have to direct them to independent financial advice.

With so many bodies from across numerous industries outlining concerns that there is a risk that people will save into a lifetime ISA when it is not the most beneficial retirement savings option, I cannot see a reasonable argument against ensuring that applicants receive independent financial advice before opening an account. To paraphrase Mr Lewis, it seems palpably sensible to take that approach. I hope that the Government give careful consideration to our proposal and take on board the concerns that not only I but many people have expressed.

[Ian Blackford]

The Scottish National party welcomes the attempts by Peter Dowd, the hon. Member for Bootle, to ask the UK Government—

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Debate between Peter Dowd and Ian Blackford

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

[Peter Dowd]

I understand that clarification and I will touch on that topic in my speech.

Finally, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who supports the Government’s proposals, spoke about his experiences as a self-employed person and said that the proposal is not a supplementary pension but a means of saving.

Labour welcomes the sentiments expressed today on both sides of the House about the need to address savings overall. In general, anything that allows more people to save for the future is to be welcomed. Helping younger people and those on low incomes to save is a particularly legitimate and worthy objective, and the Government are right to consider policies to incentivise it. The majority of people on low incomes or in precarious work—categories sadly growing in Conservative Britain—are far from being in a position to save. Six years of Tory failures and austerity has led to many not knowing from where the next pound will come week in, week out. The Government’s clueless approach to exiting Europe simply compounds the problem on a macroeconomic level.

How is it possible for people to save when it is hardly possible for many to live properly on a weekly basis? How can a person save for the future when they can barely get through the day? The scandal of low retirement savings for the less well-off is an indictment on any notion of a cohesive society. One in seven pensioners lives in poverty and a further 1.2 million have incomes just above the poverty line. Distributional analysis by the Women’s Budget Group shows that single female pensioners will experience a whopping 20% drop in their living standards. It is unconscionable that people who have worked hard and contributed to society are forced to spend their final years in hardship and insecurity. We agree that there are problems that need to be solved urgently but the TUC states:

“Products such as… the forthcoming Lifetime ISA are disconnected from the world of work and prioritise goals other than retirement saving.”

As for the lifetime ISA, it is hard to see how its introduction even begins to tackle the problems to which I have just referred; not only does it represent a missed opportunity to build on the success of automatic enrolment, as those on the SNP Front Bench have said, but its introduction could serve as a distraction to tackling the real issues at hand. It misdirects valuable resources, as the money the Government are spending on this scheme is likely to benefit mostly those on higher incomes, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions. It also needlessly complicates the pensions and savings landscape—an arena already fraught with complexity. Perhaps most dangerously, it has the potential to undermine the emerging consensus that a pension ISA approach would be detrimental in the round. Indeed, it has the potential to introduce just such an approach through the back door. That is a concern and we are seeking assurances from the Government that it is not doing that.

In the months leading up to the Budget, the concept of replacing the existing systems of pensions tax relief with an ISA-style approach was widely debated and almost universally rejected as damaging to people’s retirement prospects. I wonder, as do many others, whether, after enduring an embarrassing rebuff, the Tories are back again with the same intent under the guise of this Bill. Many in the pensions industry have described the LISA as a “stealth” move towards pension ISAs. The Work and Pensions Committee has said that the Government are marketing the LISA as a pension product and there is a high risk that people will opt out of their workplace pension as a result. Let me be perfectly clear: people will not be better off saving into an ISA as opposed to a workplace pension. The Committee found that

“For most employees the decision to save in a LISA instead of through a workplace pension would be detrimental to their retirement savings.”

[Ian Blackford]

Can the hon. Gentleman shed some light on why he thinks the Government would introduce a Bill that would make people worse off as a result of investing in an ISA than they would be if they invested in a pension? Does he not think that that is an abdication of responsibility by the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

The answer to the first question is that I do not know and the answer to the second is yes.

I have to give credit where credit is due, because the Conservative party has a particular talent for conjuring up political smokescreens and opportunistic gimmicks: it has given us a national living wage, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a living wage; we were promised a “big society”, yet the Government set about systematically undermining the notion of a cohesive society; and we were cynically assured by the late, unlamented Chancellor that we were “all in it together”. One thing I do acknowledge is that post-Brexit, given the poor performance of the Ministers responsible for negotiating it, we will all be in it together—and it won’t smell very nice. In the meantime, the Government continue unfairly and unjustly to condemn working people and vulnerable groups to pay for the Government’s failed austerity obsession—and now it is time for the Government to mess up pensions. Do they never learn from their mistakes? Are they so ideologically driven that they simply cannot admit that they get things wrong? These are mistakes, I might add, that others pay for. Have the Government not done enough damage to the prospects of hundreds of thousands of WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—pensions without thinking that through? Yet again, they have not thought about the potential for millions more to be affected.

When former Conservative pensions Ministers are referring to the LISA as a “Trojan horse” and warning that such “superficial attractions” will “destroy pensions”, alarm bells begin to ring on the Opposition Benches, if not on the other side of the House. Given this scenario, common sense demands ask that we ask this: are we now being presented with a savings Bill that will fundamentally undermine proper planning for pensions for the future? As many others have pointed out, the LISA is a sort of pension and not a sort of pension—it is both and not at the same time—and neither will it necessarily last for a lifetime. This seemingly opportunistically designed product risks even more pensioner poverty, which people can ill afford at any time, let alone in their later years. Moreover, the Tories’ approach of transferring responsibility and risk from the collective to individuals will not work, especially as the incomes of the poorest, the majority of whom are women, are being squeezed by public sector cuts and the roll-out of universal credit.

The Labour party is motivated and inspired by the real principle and value that we are all in it together—this is not a slogan and a soundbite, but a truism. We know that the majority of people are significantly disadvantaged by an individualised, dog-eat-dog approach, as opposed to a collective system that has fairness at its core. Today, people struggle with wages that are still lower than they were before the global financial crisis in 2008. There are now 800,000 people on zero-hours contracts and half a million people in bogus self-employment, and nearly 4 million of our children are living in poverty. Labour’s economic strategy is committed to tackling wage stagnation, particularly among those at the lower end, so that they are able and have the capacity to save for their future as well as living life now.

As the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said:

“The pensions system that I want to see ensures dignity in retirement, and a proper reflection of the contribution that older people have made, and continue to make, to our society.”

Labour Members would like the Government categorically, unequivocally and clearly to assure the public that this Bill is not a veiled attack on pensions as we know them.