Finance Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I beg to move amendment 61, page 3, line 12, at end add—

‘(2) Schedule 3 shall not have effect unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report on the implications of the abolition of compulsory annuitisation of pensions, including—

(a) the revenue implications of abolition; and

(b) a distributional analysis showing who would benefit from abolition.’.

The amendment would mean that the age at which compulsory annuitisation is required could not rise, as the Government announced in the Budget, from the current 75 to 77 until the Chancellor lays before the House a report setting out the implications of abolishing the compulsory annuitisation of pensions savings. That would include the revenue implications and a distributional analysis of who would benefit from the abolition, in the interests of transparency. It is important to explore in more detail the Government’s precise thinking and intentions.

Before I do that, I shall comment on the sudden appearance this morning of a written ministerial statement, to which the Economic Secretary referred, on the matter. It appeared without the courtesy of any warning before our debate on the subject.

I spent some time on the Treasury website trying to avoid the increasingly odious comments on the “spending challenge website”, which continues to publish offensive and outrageous suggestions for savings, such as sterilising the poor, reopening the workhouses and the forced repatriation of immigrants. It appears to be completely unmoderated by the Treasury, and I hope that the Economic Secretary will convey my strong view that something should be done about that thing on the Treasury website.

What I could not find on the Treasury website, right up to the point when I came into the Chamber for today’s debate, was a copy of the consultation document that the written ministerial statement said would be there. I have a copy of the complete list of Treasury consultation documents that was on the website at around 12.30 pm. It featured the bank levy consultation, but not the consultation alluded to in the written statement. I therefore had to go the Library and have it printed so that I had the chance to look at it before I dashed into the Chamber, but the Minister has been waving it about. Will it be the usual behaviour of those on the Treasury Bench to give Members of the House so little time to look at a 53-page document? There was no advance warning, and the document was unavailable on the Treasury website, even though the written ministerial statement said it would be there. The Minister should get her Department to do a lot better than it has done today. That the document was unavailable anywhere other than via a photocopying machine in the Library at the last minute is a discourtesy to the House.

When I had a look at the consultation as I sat on the Front Bench while other debates were going on, the first thing I noticed was that the consultation will be a mere eight weeks long. It starts today and will end on 10 September, which is four weeks shorter than is recommended as good practice in the code on consultation, the second criterion of which states:

“Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible”.

The consultation is an eight-week, rushed consultation that includes the entirety of the August holiday, when many of the people who have expertise on this matter will be sunning themselves in very much nicer climes than most of us could probably afford to visit, before they come back to pronounce. That is a very peculiar way to consult on such an important matter.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also find it a little strange that there is such a short consultation period when we are talking about a two-year extension? That seems contradictory.

[Ms Eagle]

I too wanted to ask the Minister this: what on earth is the rush about? One thing about annuitising and pension rules is that she has a little run-in time to consider—at some length—the implications of her proposals. I do not understand why there was such short notice and why the consultation is so rushed. I am forming an impression that the Government have already decided what they are going to do and that the consultation is a sham. If it is, they ought to have the decency to tell us what they have decided and not to consult at all. I would not have thought that the many experts who will be sunning themselves over the August holidays will thank the Government very much for giving them such a short time to respond.

The foreword of the consultation document states:

“The Government wants to foster a new culture of saving in the UK.”

We would all agree with that, and that a rebalancing towards saving is necessary. Therefore, it is important to prioritise large numbers of people saving appropriately. I had a look to see what the Government have done so far to encourage saving, particularly in pensions, which is what annuities are all about. Will the Minister explain quite how reducing public and private pensions by changing their definitions from RPI to CPI helps to increase pension saving? Yesterday, the Daily Mail and various other experts said that that is a raid on people’s pension expectations of more than £100 billion in the private sector, an amount that will accumulate year after year. Can the Minister explain how that encourages pension saving? Will she confirm that the impact assessment in this consultation lets the cat out of the bag when it comes to changing annuitisation rules? We have no particular problem, and certainly no philosophical problem with shifting the age of annuitisation from 75 to 77. Longevity has increased and the last rules—and the age of 75—were set in 1956. Indeed, annuitisation was first made compulsory in the Finance Bill of 1921, which was slightly before my time and I know that it was also before the Minister’s time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I appreciate that the arrangements will broadly have the effect of maintaining the tax treatment that applied to similar expenses paid under the previous arrangements. Tax treatment of MPs’ expenses used to be dealt with by specific legislation or long-standing extra-statutory concessions. As hon. Members will know, a long-term project has been undertaken following the judgment in the Wilkinson case of 2006 to place all the statutory concessions on a proper legislative basis. Can the Minister confirm that the previous concession, which I think is numbered A.54—Members of Parliament: accommodation, allowances and expenses—has, with this legislation, been withdrawn, and whether any of the other extra-statutory concessions outstanding are affected by the Bill?

[Robert Flello]

My right hon. Friend said that schedule 4 was broadly neutral in terms of income tax. Has he noted paragraph 1(4) on loans for deposits payable on rented accommodation—perhaps our constituency offices or flats that we need in London because of the ridiculous IPSA rules on staying in hotels? It is common practice for landlords to charge a deposit on flats, something that we have to pay only because we are here representing our constituents. Has my right hon. Friend noticed that there is a tax implication for us in that?

[Stephen Timms]

I confess that when I read the legislation that point did not strike me, but it has been raised and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it on the record.