Finance Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury made that point very forcefully earlier. The regressive impact of insurance premium tax is not widely understood, but, when our poorest constituents take out insurance, they are hit disproportionately hard, and unfortunately many of them will decide to go without that insurance altogether.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about a 1% rise being regressive, but, on his earlier point about it putting people off buying insurance, the average household insurance policy is £400 and a 1% increase will add £4 to the total cost. If someone who seriously wishes to insure their home is prepared to pay £400, is he really suggesting that an extra £4 will produce the result to which he referred, namely that many people will no longer purchase insurance?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and he is right that at that level the disincentive might well be marginal. However, my point is that there is a slippery slope, and, with 1% here and 1% there, before we know it we have 2% or more—3%, or even 4%. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary asked about the potential risk of aligning our insurance premium tax arrangements with those of the wider European Union, and, if they are at 22% in Italy or wherever, there is a risk of a serious disincentive.

So, I regard this debate as a stitch in time to put down a marker and say to the Government, “Don’t chance it too far. This may well feel like a small amount of money. but £10 on a motor insurance policy of £1,000 is quite an additional burden and not to be sniffed at.” If the Government continued to ratchet up the costs in that way, that would be regrettable. Some of the amendments before us are very sensible, and, in asking for a report from the Treasury, I also urge it to consider in that document the merits of a requirement on insurers to advertise more prominently the yield from insurance premium tax and the rate of tax that customers pay, because it is exceptionally important that our constituents understand why they are asked to pay so much.

When I consulted the Association of British Insurers about that, its representatives said that they would welcome more information on policy documentation and be more than happy to work with the Treasury on those matters. If the amendment is carried, and there are good arguments for doing so, I hope that the Minister will consider that point seriously.

The impact on travel insurance will be even greater, given the costs for many people who travel abroad on, perhaps, their holidays. If those people are my constituents, they will often do so for one week a year, if that. However, all travellers are encouraged to take out travel insurance for such trips, and the rate is currently 17.5%, but it will go up by 2.5 percentage points to 20%, which is a significant amount of money, so, if we discourage our constituents from taking out insurance on their holidays or travel, there will again be consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. Would he extend his argument to, for example, household insurance and the whole range of insurance premium tax? As was pointed out earlier in the debate, people insure their houses against flooding and fire, for example. There is therefore no burden on the state in the event of flooding, because the insurance companies carry it, and if a house catches fire, people do not have to look for a loan from social security, because they are covered by the insurance. Does he accept that the amount of money involved is hardly likely to act as a disincentive?

[Mr Chope]

The answer is yes; I would wish to extend my argument. However, I tabled two specific amendments so that we could have a focused debate. It has become apparent in the course of the debate—I did not know this before—that about half the yield from the IPT increase will be from motor and health insurance premiums, and about half from other insurance, such as household insurance.

I am concerned that in my constituency, particularly as a result of the rather reckless behaviour of the Environment Agency, there is a blight on a number of houses, whose owners find either that they cannot access flood risk insurance or that that insurance is much more expensive than it used to be. Because of how IPT works, the state benefits from the latter outcome through extra income, and there is an extra burden on householders. Some very important points were made by Members who are concerned about household insurance. It was open to anybody to table similar amendments, but I tabled two to focus the debate. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) did the House a service by tabling an amendment that calls for a proper analysis so that the House can know the full implications of the proposals before we are asked whether we support them.

We have spent two hours discussing this matter, but we have still not really heard from the Government about the direction of travel. We certainly have not heard whether the principles so articulately described by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary—he spoke of people who can afford to pay their fare using free bus passes—apply throughout the coalition Government, and to those who take responsibility for their health care, education or other aspects of their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Over the past few weeks since the coalition came into being and the announcement of the Budget, the rhetoric that we have heard has been all about fairness. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said on many occasions, “We’re all in this together.” The other phrase is, “There’s no alternative.” We have heard the accusation that the previous Labour Government did not have a deficit reduction strategy. Well, this element was a key part of that—£3.6 billion of it.

I am quite sad that only one Government Back Bencher is in the Chamber, and I notice that the Liberal Democrats have not been here throughout this debate. During the election, we heard nothing about the VAT rises, but we also heard nothing about the fact that one of the things that the Government would do in their first Finance Bill would be to give a £3.6 billion tax give-away to the richest 2% of pensioners. I am sure that that would have gone down very badly with the electorate if the Government parties had been honest with us at that time. During the past week, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, in their great coalition together, have been arguing that VAT is not regressive, although a key exception is the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has found this policy very difficult. However, one cannot say that the measure we are debating is progressive at all.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the amendment, which would require a distributional analysis of any changes, were accepted, we would be in a position to make a judgment on whether a system that is complicated, as the shadow spokesman said, was at least being replaced with a system that was fair and did not, as the hon. Gentleman says, give a huge amount of money to the very richest people?

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There seems to have been confusion from the Minister in the sense that she is saying, “Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more”—in other words, that the Government might not actually introduce this measure. If this change is to be made, we need to know who it will affect lower down the income chain. If the top 2% are not going to carry their share of the burden, people lower down the tax scale will be affected, such as pensioners, who are already being hit by VAT and other implications of this Budget.

This proposal affects 300,000 people—2% of pension savers and 1% of working age taxpayers. We are being told that it is fair, just and progressive to abolish what was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which would have raised £3.6 billion to help to reduce the deficit that was created because of the lending we had to provide following the economic crisis. I am sorry, but I do not accept that that is fair, and I think that if this were explained to most members of the public, they would agree. Currently, no one who earned under £130,000 a year would be affected by this measure. If someone is in a Cabinet packed full of millionaires, that perhaps skews their perspective on what poverty is and what income buys. However, the average member of the public, certainly in North Durham, would be appalled by the fact that we are going to let off people who are earning what is not just a good wage but, for most of my constituents, a fantastic, unimaginable wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I certainly do not think that the Government can be trusted but, more importantly, do the industry, consumers and the wider financial community trust them to get their ducks in a row and recover the £3.6 billion? Much was made of the Chancellor saying, “We’ve got to get all this money and get the deficit down, otherwise we might be re-rated,” but suddenly we do not know where a key component of that—£3.6 billion—is coming from.

I mentioned that there will be a discussion group of stakeholders in the summer. The previous Labour Government considered reducing the annual allowance and all the other options. It is on the record in Hansard that the annual allowance proposal was rejected partly because it was less well targeted—as has been said, we wanted to focus on those who are able to pay most easily and without great pain rather than make the weakest pay more—and partly because of its complexity.

Another key point I wanted to make—I do not think it has been made clearly enough—is that primary legislation is necessary to reduce the annual allowance. The proposal in the Bill is half-baked. It gets rid of a system of gathering £3.6 billion and the Government are incapable of replacing it with an alternative. I object to the clause not just because of the discussion with stakeholders and the uncertainty, but specifically because section 282(2) of the Finance Act 2004 states that the annual allowance set by Treasury order must not be less than the preceding year. Given that the allowance is £255,000, it cannot suddenly become £30,000 to £45,000 without changing that legislation. Such a measure is not included in the Bill, which is another indication of how half-cocked the proposals are. We are discussing a Finance Bill now, but we would need another one before April 2011 to change that allowance. The proposal is incomplete and will mean uncertainty; it demonstrates ineptitude and incompetence; and it undermines confidence among industry providers and consumers. After all, we want more people to save with certainty, so that they have comfort rather than hardship in what we hope will be their long and happy retirements. This will undermine those prospects. People will be less likely to subscribe to sensible, robust pension schemes for the future.

The Government are giving themselves the power to repeal primary legislation by order without knowing exactly what will be put in its place. That is a half-baked approach. Amendment 60 calls for an analysis of “the likely impact”. I tabled an amendment that was not selected, but it simply suggested that this clause should be scrapped. We have looked at the issue, and we know what the distributional impact will be, albeit not in detail. We know that the rich will be let off the hook, and more widely it will cause massive uncertainty about the future. There may also be a question mark over whether we can fulfil our financial obligations as set out in the Budget.

Towers Watson, which is a leading consultant on pensions, says that lowering the annual allowance to £30,000 would lead to tax charges for long-serving final salary scheme members. That means that employers would pull the plug on such schemes. That is not my claim, but that of industry experts. We have already seen across British industry the loss of reliable and robust final salary schemes. Towers Watson says that the changes will undermine final salary schemes because they will not be as useful in retaining staff if they have a tax bill attached. The Minister has not thought this through. If big employers have these final salary schemes, their staff stay with the company because they know that each year they gain a little more benefit, instead of going to a predatory competitor company.

Towers Watson argues that the Government can either introduce a simple system or a fair system, but not both. A rough and ready approach was fine when a few were worried about the annual allowance, but the Government’s proposals would have an impact on hundreds of thousands of people. All the stakeholders will be running around wondering what the changes will mean for them and providers will wonder whether they should provide a different scheme. I mentioned KPMG before, and I will not go through all the consultants in terms of their support for my position, but KPMG says that the number of pension savers affected has widened from 2% to 10%. PricewaterhouseCoopers says that the level will need to be £30,000—as opposed to £30,000 to £45,000—to raise the £3.6 billion needed. The movement from £255,000 to £30,000 is a radical change and we are still consulting on it.

PricewaterhouseCoopers says:

“Employers need certainty over the regulatory framework for pensions if they are to be remotivated to provide quality workplace pensions.”

The Government’s proposals are unfair, unclear, half-baked, fast and loose and a massive new multi-million pound bankers’ bonus to pay back many of the people who put us in this mess in the first place. They are disgraceful and should be withdrawn.

[Sammy Wilson]

I have only a few points to make. The Conservative party’s fortunes or misfortunes do not really affect us in Northern Ireland so I am not seeking to score political points or to say that the Tories are bad people, even though they may be considered to be so by many people. However, the basic issue that hits everyone in the face in considering this measure is how it sits with the claim by the Government that the Budget is fair.