Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I think that all Treasury Ministers would be delighted to congratulate Aqua Cooling on the innovation award it has won. As has been said, the Government have committed to supporting research and development in British businesses, providing one of the most generous R and D tax credit schemes in the world to UK small business. I am delighted to say that it was claimed by more than 18,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in 2014-15.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

T7. Why does the Chancellor believe that corporation tax receipts collapsed in September 2016 to their lowest level since 2009? Why does he believe borrowing will overshoot the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast by an extra £17 billion this financial year?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am sorry to be boring, but all these issues will be addressed at the time of the autumn statement, when we will have the latest fiscal projections from the OBR.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Peter Hendy is doing an excellent job in sorting out the finances of Network Rail. We funded the projects in control period 5 and funded additional spill-overs into control period 6. East-west rail is an important project and it will go ahead.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The autumn statement confirms the Chancellor’s climate change exemptions, which leave energy-intensives such as steel companies no better off cash-wise. The partial exemptions from renewables obligation certificates and feed-in tariffs, which are now to end in four months anyway, leave the Chancellor’s new permanent exemption as close to worthless as it gets. The Chancellor announced four years ago an exemption to his carbon price floor tax. Where is it?

[Mr Osborne]

We are providing a permanent exemption to the maximum amount allowed by EU state rules for steel industries in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere, as well as chemicals and other energy-intensive industries. This will be a permanent exemption, rather than a grant from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That makes it much more sustainable going forward.

The Economy

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I would be happy to have that co-operation at any stage. What we said to the Chancellor five years ago was that he was going too fast and that he should have been investing in growth, which would have enabled us to reduce the deficit. He promised to reduce the deficit and debt in five years, but he is going to do it in 10. That is a doubling of the target.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend remind the House at what rate the Chancellor has accrued debt over the past five years? Has he not accrued approximately the same amount of debt over the past five years as the last Labour Government accrued in 13 years?

[John McDonnell]

The debt has increased by 55% in five years. That is a helpful record.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

So he has doubled the debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

First, may I apologise to the House for having to leave the debate halfway through to attend a meeting, Madam Deputy Speaker?

I wish to use this debate to talk about my community. Teesside and East Cleveland have suffered huge economic challenges since mid-September. I have tried to use other tools within the House to raise this before, but the situation in Paris at the weekend meant that it was right and proper that that took precedence. This, however, still needs to be put on the record: 2,000 direct jobs have been lost at SSI-Teesside Cast Products in Redcar—a plant I know very well as a former trade union officer there—following its liquidation, with 900 jobs lost downstream; 700 jobs have been lost at Air Products; 70 jobs have been lost at Johnson Matthey; 200 jobs have been lost at Caparo, Hartlepool; 300 have gone at the Tees tax office; and last Thursday it was announced that 350 jobs are to go at Boulby potash in my constituency, with another 350 following that—that represents three quarters of the workforce there, and all of them are miners, so these are well-paid jobs. By any estimation, those statistics are truly dreadful. The direct impact on local people puts them in jeopardy, with their families and friends profoundly affected. It is hard to give proper representation to every single one of those people because of the massive effects on them. I know SSI steelworkers whose partners and sons worked at Boulby potash, and their ability to earn has been completely destroyed.

Those redundancies and potential redundancies are primarily in the private sector and are industrial. I cannot overstate the feeling of abandonment that my communities feel in the face of this onslaught. The all-party group on steel and metal related industry has for a long time made the five industrial asks, but they remain unanswered. I have written to the Chancellor demanding a response on those industrial asks in the affirmative to help not only the steel industry, but all energy-intensive industries. We know that the previous coalition Government reduced the carbon capture and storage programmes from four down to one. I have also written to the Chancellor about that in relation to the Teesside Collective, and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) raised the issue in Prime Minister’s questions today. We are trying to turn this negative into an opportunity—to seize this bad publicity about industry in our area—and have a profound impact within the Tees economy by giving the Teesside Collective prime candidacy in terms of carbon capture and storage. I believe, and industrialists in the area know there is a means by which, we can not only revive steelmaking, but give a renaissance to process industries in the area if we have a state that is directly involved and provides a CCS scheme there. It has been four weeks since the steel summit and none of the asks by industry, the unions or MPs has been properly responded to.

One of those asks is about the profound issue of Chinese dumping. Some 94% of all Chinese steel that enters the EU enters the UK. There is something seriously wrong with that. We as an individual state can take action and there are lessons for us both within the European Union and with our partner nations and allies; we could act not only protectively together, but as an individual state. That means having a Government who are proactive about trade defence. I cannot go into that now because of time constraints, but the Government should take it far more seriously.

Another big issue is our need for cheaper energy, and we should be supporting coal gasification. The Tees area is right next to the Durham coalfields and there are years and years, if not decades, of coal still under there which can be gasified. That syngas is 50% cheaper than conventional gas. Make no mistake: the United States will turn off the tap of the current shale gas exports we receive at the moment. The only reason we get that gas is because the US does not have enough container vessels to contains its own shale gas. When it does, that tap will be turned off, which will have profound effects on our economy and our ability to keep the lights on. We should be using that syngas to prioritise the steel industry and other manufacturing.

We have also seen our economy exposed to the Chinese economy, with the relevant figure being $500 billion. In terms of steel, energy-intensive industries and manufacturing, China cannot, with its current subsidised practices, get market status from the EU. Ministers need to raise this issue over and over again: market status for China would end the conversation about whether we can maintain our manufacturing whatsoever.

Finally, let me make a point about defence. Unless this country looks at renewing the four Trident boats, there will be no viable way of saving the Dalzell steel site.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

At the present time, I have no particular message for the former head of the Federal Reserve, except to say that we inherited the most enormous deficit. We will continue to bring it down, which the British people gave us a mandate to do, and we will pay down the debt, because if we do not do that in the good times, when will we ever?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) reminded us that when the financial crisis hit, the cupboard was bare, because of the structural deficit the Labour Government allowed to build up. In 2010, we immediately began the programme to bring that down. Since then, despite the oil price spike and the eurozone crisis, we have made great progress and have halved the deficit, but much more remains to be done. We set out what that would entail before the election and in the summer Budget: a combination of departmental spending reductions, tax measures and reductions to the welfare bill. Importantly, however, we are maintaining our commitment to the institutions on which Britons most rely: our schools and our world-leading national health service.

Elsewhere, however, we need to make savings, and next week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out the remaining detail in the autumn statement, alongside an updated fiscal forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will not expect me to pre-empt what my right hon. Friend will say next week.

We have set out a new settlement for working Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh enumerated some of what we have been doing to help hard-working families, including the increase in the personal allowance. The introduction of the national living wage will directly benefit 2.7 million workers on low wages, and up to 7 million people in total, and it is a measure that will disproportionately benefit women. We are doubling the free childcare offered to working families with three and four-year-olds, we have frozen council tax and fuel duty and we have capped payday loans—all actions that the Government have taken to support working families.

In the little time available I want to respond to some of the important points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) spoke powerfully—as he always does—on behalf of his constituents. He reminded us, as we know all too well, that economic growth does not take place evenly everywhere, and that some places and sectors face significant difficulties. This is a difficult and uncertain time for many people who have been affected by the issues that he raised. As he knows, the Government cannot control the world price of steel, and we cannot cover that entire complex subject in this debate. It is right, however, that the multi-million pound package has been put in place for Redcar and Scunthorpe, and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is fully engaged on that issue.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I am so sorry, but I cannot give way because of time.

Many other Members have made important and interesting speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) took us back to the golden legacy that the Labour Government inherited, and he reminded us of the key role of work in escaping poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) reminded us that if we are not strong financially we cannot be strong militarily or in our national security.

The hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for East Antrim spoke correctly about the importance of investment in driving forward the next phases of our economic growth, and the Government have committed to spending £100 billion in this Parliament on economic and social infrastructure. With the reforms to vehicle excise duty, we will have the strategic roads fund for England. Despite fiscal consolidation, investment as a share of GDP will on average be higher this decade than under the last Labour Government. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about the importance of ensuring that we fully exploit in this country the innovations we make in this country. That is improving in some of the ways listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, but we must focus on it constantly.

Being in government brings with it responsibilities, but every difficult decision that we have taken to get this country back on track was opposed by the Labour party. Those decisions were right, and they have put us firmly on a path to a fundamental strengthening of our nation’s prospects. We have got to the stage where the economy is turning the corner. The deficit is down by more than a half, a record number of people are in work, living standards are rising, and low inflation is keeping household bills under control. But, of course, the job is not yet done. Complacency and losing focus and fiscal discipline almost led our country to disaster in 2008, and that would be the worst thing that we could do now for the economic security of Britain.

Balancing the books is not a question of dry economics; it is a moral imperative and vital to our long-term economic security. It is the foundation behind the security of every family in Britain. Only through this Government’s long-term economic plan can we deliver the continued prosperity that Britain deserves, and I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.

Productivity

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is right that the previous Labour Government had a dreadful record on manufacturing, and that is one of the key challenges—this reads through to productivity—facing us this Parliament.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I am the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. I welcome the Minister to his new role. Of course, in the past five years, under the coalition Government, manufacturing shrank by 1%. In terms of productivity, the north-east is probably the lead region in the country, mainly because of its chemical and pharmaceutical sectors, but they have seen the largest slump over the past five years, due mainly to the lack of investment. Does he agree that one problem is that the Government imposed the unilateral carbon floor price tax on energy-intensive industries, and did not the Chancellor promise to bring in a compensation mechanism? Will he speak about that, because it would not pre-empt the Chancellor’s emergency Budget in July?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that series of questions, but his use of statistics was highly selective. I am sure he will join me in celebrating the fact that the two regions in which employment is rising the fastest are the north-west and the north-east. Of all regions, the north-east leads the way in export growth. I am sure he will also join me in welcoming the fall of 1,518 in unemployment in his constituency under the last Government—again, just shy of a 50% fall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is, quite frankly, wrong. I shall also cover that point later in my speech.

The sad fact is that the recent growth in UK GDP has been driven not by increased productivity and not by a focus on increased investment levels or high-value sectors. Instead, it has been delivered with zero-hours contracts, often paying the minimum wage and with low employee engagement. That is not the way to power a modern 21st-century advanced economy. We see the results of this poor performance in our manufacturing sector. Previously, manufacturing accounted for some 30% of total GDP—a position shared with many of our European neighbours. However, a lack of investment and a focus on the City of London have resulted in a manufacturing percentage of GDP that is now barely into double figures.

With only a limited set of powers, the Scottish Government have set out an ambitious strategy to increase Scotland’s productivity and, as a result, Scotland’s economy has seen sustained growth over recent years, with record numbers of people in employment. Female participation in the labour market has increased, and Scotland’s female employment has reached a record high. Including more women in the workforce is a powerful driver to increased productivity and encourages a balanced and inclusive economy. The Scottish Government’s plans to expand the provision of free childcare will encourage more parents into work, too. It is worthy of note that between 2007—the year of the SNP’s election to Holyrood—and 2013, the largest relative rise in productivity of any region or nation in the UK was in Scotland.

This debate must fundamentally be about ambition, which is something that the SNP has for Scotland in droves, but our ambition is for much more than simply a return to pre-recession levels of economic performance. Allow me to highlight some key areas that the Scottish Government’s economic strategy—a real long-term economic plan—promotes.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. She will note that, in the last three years of the coalition Government, imports of Chinese steel have risen by 40%. Does she think it was helpful that the Scottish Executive awarded a contract for the firth of Forth bridge to a Chinese company instead of using British steel?

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but I would point out that that we did not make the steel in Scotland and that it was a decision of the Scottish Government, not the Scottish Executive.

I was about to highlight some key areas that the Scottish Government’s economic strategy promotes. They include internationalisation, which helps firms to compete in international markets, to increase exports, to make Scotland a preferred location for inward investment and—most importantly from my business perspective—to promote Scotland as the brand of “We are outward looking, we are ambitious and we are open for business”. The plan also promotes investment in our infrastructure, transport, technology and digital connectivity.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend and her excellent question. She is absolutely right that today’s statement announces a decision point on the journey of implementing our long-term economic plan. Part of that is returning the financial sector to its normal state of health.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The £3.50 share float price relies on pension fund managers who run Abbey Life, Aberdeen Management, AXA, Clerical Medical, Scottish Widows, six councils, Whitbread, Lloyd’s of London, BAE, Boeing and, of course, Legal and General and the university superannuation schemes, which have already ruled out buying any RBS shares. What they all share is litigation with RBS. Why would they use their customers’ money to buy shares in a company or a bank such as RBS, against which they are taking litigation?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman points out something that appears in the Rothschild report—that the bank still faces a range of uncertainties, particularly regarding regulatory action from America. The price today therefore reflects that information.

Amendment of the Law

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The Chancellor was not talking nonsense. It was perfectly sensible to aim to remove the structural deficit as quickly as possible. The fact that we have taken longer over it is a reflection of common sense.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Business Secretary will know that manufacturing has hardly shifted as a percentage of GDP in a period when Tata Steel is potentially selling off half its UK operations to a gentleman with a spurious background in that industry. Is he really saying that the march of the makers and manufacturing is doing so well when 20,000 to 30,000 jobs might be at risk because of de-investment in British and European markets, particularly in the steel industry?

[Vince Cable]

We do not know what will happen in relation to Tata Steel, but I and my Department are talking to the parties involved, including the trade unions, and we are very concerned about the situation. The hon. Gentleman may, however, have overlooked one thing in the Budget. We had a very emotional debate in the House about the future of the steel industry a couple of months ago, and there is a lot of genuine concern, which I share, about the future of steel. Many of its problems derive from relatively high energy costs, but one element of the Budget was to bring forward the compensation to help steel producers—whether in south Wales, the midlands or the north—to deal with the pressures on their costs. I would have hoped that, at the very least, there would be a little acknowledgment of that.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Yes, the Chancellor announced that, but he had said that the compensation scheme would come in much earlier than next year. The Tata long products division is still operating under the existing conditions and, may I add, with a carbon floor price brought in unilaterally by this Government—without any discussion with the industry—which is jeopardising all those jobs. Will the Secretary of State at least talk to the Chancellor about speeding up the compensation package, which is much needed for energy-intensive industries?

[Vince Cable]

The industry has already received a certain amount of compensation. The constraint on bringing it forward is not the reluctance of the Chancellor, but the problem of getting state aid approval. Once that approval has been given, the compensation can and will be brought forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

The Chancellor did not announce that as a goal; he made a projection about what, under certain assumptions, the minimum wage would be. He has agreed with me and we have a combined view that we should accept the advice of the Low Pay Commission, which is what we have done. We have maintained a valuable institution, and I am seriously worried about the irresponsibility that has crept in as a result of that simple populist gesture by the Leader of the Opposition. That is not just damaging to the economy in the future, but it undermines a valuable institution that his predecessor brought in.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

At least the Secretary of State is being consistent on this issue. Will he confirm that in 2012 the Government froze the national minimum wage for those under 21?

[Vince Cable]

We have always made a clear distinction between the basic recommendation on the minimum wage, which every Minister in my position has accepted, and some of the second-order questions. We have changed the recommendation on apprenticeships, and indeed others, but the recommendation on the basic minimum wage is fundamental and something that Ministers of both Governments have honoured. The Leader of the Opposition—for reasons that are unclear beyond anything other than political populism—now proposes to destroy that tradition, and that is very retrograde.

Fiscal Responsibility and Fairness

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent people who work for HMRC. They work hard, day in, day out, on behalf of us all, to ensure that we bring in the revenue that is required, and that compliance procedures are in place to ensure that people cannot get away with dodging tax. As a result of the actions we have taken, more than £100 billion of revenue is being collected by the Exchequer that would not otherwise have been collected.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

A Budget, in other terms, is an estimate. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury please tell us about estimates that the Lib Dems will have more or fewer MPs after the general election than the 16 who are currently in the Chamber?

[Danny Alexander]

I am not sure that is a matter for the House; it is a matter for the British people in the coming election, and I confidently expect that the Liberal Democrats will do far better than any of the pundits predict.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We will never face such a large payment or such an unexpected period of time in which to pay, which is why we are getting permanent changes to the budget rules. That requires the consent of all member states, and we have that.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The UK’s deficit at the moment is the worst in the European Union. Will the Chancellor be selling that as a result as well?

[Mr Osborne]

Some of us remember inheriting a budget deficit of 11.5% from the previous Labour Government. It has fallen by more than a third. We will get the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility in December.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. First, the guidance guarantee will ensure that guidance is available to people on what their options might be, to point them in the right direction. Secondly, we recognise that the regulators have an important role to play. The Financial Conduct Authority is very engaged in this matter, setting standards and ensuring proper enforcement. She is right that we must deal seriously with any unscrupulous businesses out there that seek to exploit people, but we have a regulatory regime in place to address that very point.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the Minister elaborate on the tax implications for the Treasury of these legislative and policy changes?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very broad question about the tax implications. This is a tax Bill, so to some extent my entire speech is about the tax implications, but if he wants to intervene again, I will let him clarify.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

What are the Treasury’s estimates of the tax take to the Revenue arising from this Bill?

[Mr Gauke]

At the time of the Budget, we set out our estimates of the implications for the public finances, certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We have also made a number of announcements since the Budget that will have a revenue impact. The Office for Budget Responsibility will return to this issue at the autumn statement, when it will set out its numbers in the usual way. The estimates have yet to be certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility—as one would expect, given that we are still some way from the autumn statement—but an update on the numbers that were published in March will also be set out in December.

The changes we have announced have resulted in moving some revenue from one year to another, rather than fundamentally changing the face of the public finances, so in broad terms their overall tax impact is not considerable, certainly when compared with the substantial changes that the Government have made, such as increasing the state retirement age or reforming public sector pensions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I would like to make a little progress. That brings me to the second main change in the Bill, which is to make annuities more flexible. Current tax legislation caters for two broad categories of retirement income: lifetime annuities and drawdown. As I have set out, we are making drawdown much more flexible. Let me explain how we are doing the same for annuities.

We think annuities will still be the right product for many people, as they provide the valuable security of a guaranteed income for life. The current requirements for a lifetime annuity, however, lead to an inflexible and restrictive product, and there is a clear demand for more flexible ways of getting income from one’s pension pot. We want these reforms to stimulate competition and innovation in the retirement income market. We want providers to innovate and create new products that will more closely reflect the changing needs of their customers. We have consulted extensively with industry on the changes that it would like us to make to enable this kind of innovation. The Bill will deliver those changes by allowing annuities to decrease, and by removing the 10-year guarantee period for guaranteed annuities. That gives significantly more flexibility to providers to offer products that meet individuals’ needs more closely. Those changes will apply to annuities sold after 6 April 2015.

The third major change in the Bill is a new method by which people can access their pension. Currently, people who want to take their pension as cash have to take their whole tax-free lump sum—25% of their fund—and place the other 75% in a drawdown fund. Any money they then draw down is taxed at their marginal rate. The Bill will introduce a new option by giving individuals the flexibility to take one or more lump sums from their pension fund—with 25% of each payment tax-free and 75% taxed at their marginal rate—without having to enter into drawdown. This lump sum is known as an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum, or an UFPLS. [Interruption.] It is perhaps not the most elegant of names, but try doing better with “uncrystallised funds pension lump sum”. These payments can be taken from funds that are uncrystallised—that is, have not yet been accessed. It will be open to schemes to provide this option from 6 April 2015 onwards. This does not change the amount of tax people pay on their pension, but it does provide them with extra flexibility and further choice about when and how to access their savings in a way that suits them.

I want highlight changes that we are making through the Bill to ensure that these reforms, which are intended to give individuals more choices about their income in retirement, are not exploited for tax purposes. If the Government were to take no action, an individual over the age of 55 could divert their salary each year into their pension, take it out immediately and receive 25% of it tax-free, thus avoiding income tax and national insurance contributions on their employment income. That is not the intention of the reforms.

The Government spend a considerable amount a year on pensions tax relief and have a responsibility to ensure that the money is used for genuine pension saving. Under the current system, individuals in flexible drawdown have no annual allowance. They are not entitled to tax relief on anything that they contribute to their pension after they have accessed it flexibly. Extending this rule under the new system would be disproportionate and would disadvantage average savers. We are in an era of much more flexible retirement. An individual might access their pension flexibly and then decide to return to work, or access it while working. They might still want to save into a pension. They might be automatically enrolled into a pension and be subject to a tax charge on the amount contributed. If we kept the current system, there would be a strong incentive to opt out of auto-enrolment.

Instead of having no annual allowance, individuals who access their pensions flexibly will, under the new system, have a lower annual allowance of £10,000, which will apply to their defined contribution savings. This approach allows people the flexibility to contribute to their pension even when they have flexibly accessed their pension rights. At the same time, it ensures that individuals do not use the new flexibilities to avoid paying tax on their current earnings. It will prevent those with the means to divert large sums into pensions from doing so, while allowing the vast majority of individuals to continue to save. The Government have worked very closely with industry to develop this measure, and will continue to do so to ensure that it remains fair and proportionate.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Minister will be aware that the Pension Schemes Bill is in Committee. I am a member of that Committee, and in our fourth sitting, on Thursday 23 October 2014, a gentleman called Mr John Greenwood, a Financial Times journalist who has written quite a lot on this subject, said that the Treasury’s new policy to limit the amount of money that could be taken out at once

“will impact on only 2% of the population”.

[Mr Gauke]

That is true. However, as I have said, we have tried to ensure that we do not give people an opportunity to use the new arrangements as a way of avoiding substantial amounts of tax, while also ensuring that, in an era of more flexible working, we do not prevent people from gaining access to their pensions and then making further contributions in the circumstances that I have described. We concluded that introducing a reduced £10,000 personal allowance was the best way of striking a balance between those two objectives. We will, of course, continue to look at the matter closely to ensure that the system is not exploited at a significant cost to the Exchequer.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. He is also, potentially, being very generous with the Treasury’s coffers. Mr Greenwood said that the allowance

“will impact on only 2% of the population, so it is a penalty with no teeth for 98% of the population.” ––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 126, Q284.]

What is the Treasury’s forecast of the potential loss of national insurance contributions?

[Mr Gauke]

The Office for Budget Responsibility will return to the issue of the forecast at the time of the autumn statement. Mr Greenwood’s evidence featured some eye-watering numbers, but they were based on extraordinary assumptions about behaviour. All the changes resulting from the reforms that we have announced since the Budget will be announced in the autumn statement in the usual way. We certainly do not recognise some of the numbers that have been floated in relation to cost, but the numbers have not yet been certified by the OBR, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he seeks at this stage. Of course we have been mindful of the impact on the Exchequer, but we believe that our proposals will not put it at risk of losing substantial sums. As I have said, we are not preventing people over 55 from drawing down part of their pensions while continuing to make contributions, or retaining the flexibility to do so. We might have closed off that option, but we decided not to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

As has been mentioned, I am a member of the Pension Schemes Bill Committee, as are a number of colleagues who are present today. We are here to find out about the technical elements that will affect that Bill, because some taxation issues have been brought to our attention during the Committee’s evidence sessions. I want to refer to the evidence given by Mr John Greenwood, who is editor of Corporate Adviser magazine—it is given out to pension professionals—author of the “Financial Times Guide to Pensions and Wealth in Retirement” and a freelance journalist for national newspapers.

The issue emerged between May and July this year and concerns how individuals can avoid national insurance contributions by using the Government’s newly announced scheme to divert their income through a pension fund, rather than receiving it in a traditional salary. I will dip in and out of the evidence Mr Greenwood gave during the Committee’s fourth sitting, on Thursday 23 October, because I think that it is pertinent to the Pension Schemes Bill Committee’s considerations and to the debate on the Taxation of Pensions Bill, both here and in Committee. Mr Greenwood, elaborating on his concerns, told the Pension Schemes Bill Committee:

“The new easy access rules create a huge risk of widespread tax avoidance. If everyone over 55 takes full advantage of them, the Treasury could lose £20 billion in 2015-16—obviously, that is a massive number. That will not happen, but if even a tenth of people do, that is still a £2 billion loss. That seems to make quite a hole in the Treasury’s optimistic projection of making £3 billion of profit out of the policy over the five years of the next Parliament.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 117, Q249.]

The Financial Secretary said earlier that the Treasury had not yet given a forecast of how much it expects to make or lose on this policy, but we already know from Mr Greenwood’s inquiries that the Treasury had initially estimated a £3 billion profit. I think that is pertinent to today’s debate, because it is about the tax implications of the legislation and how they will affect the autumn statement, the Budget and what a future Government will be able to plan for with regard to incomings and outgoings.

Mr Greenwood went on to say:

“In layman’s terms, the Government’s position is that you can take your money as cash from 55. If you are an employee, you have two options. You could be paid into your current account through salary, which is taxed at 13.8% employer national insurance on everything over about £8,000 and the employee pays national insurance of 12% on everything above that figure, and then everything is taxed above the nil rate band. Obviously, you have to be paid the minimum wage of £11,500-ish, but above that, why would you be paid through your salary when you can pay into a pension and take it all out the next day? For payments into a pension, there is no employer or employee NI at all, and only three quarters of it is subject to income tax. The Bill effectively gives everyone over 55 a £10,000 NI-free allowance—four times that in the first year, if they draw their money early.

When the penny drops, people will suddenly realise how much loss there is there. If you are on £40,000 and you maximise this—there are currently no rules to say you cannot do this—the loss to the Treasury is 62% of the revenue they would have got from that person’s employment. That is quite a chunky amount. It is clear from the Budget documents that the Treasury had not spotted this, because if you look at the documents published alongside, and the risk assessment, there was no mention of national insurance at all. They have moved with a reduced annual allowance of £10,000 for those who take benefits early, which reduces it but does not stop it altogether.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 117, Q250.]

I raised that point earlier with the Financial Secretary and asked whether he could tell me what percentage of people the £10,000 threshold would affect. He did not give me a response, so I told him that Mr Greenwood valued it at about 2% of the population, so 98% of the population would be exempted. The Financial Secretary responded that that was Mr Greenwood’s suggestion, but Mr Greenwood was actually referring to a response from the Treasury. That is deeply worrying, because we do not know the implications of the policy.

What we do know is that the Treasury’s policy at the moment is not to respond to Mr Greenwood, because he has written to the Treasury six or seven times without receiving a response. I understand that he has written to the Office for Budget Responsibility once to request a forecast but, as of last Thursday, has not yet received a reply—he might have had a phone call by now. I do not know about other colleagues in the Chamber, but I find that profoundly worrying, if we are potentially losing a considerable amount of money from the Treasury’s coffers—potentially £2 billion to £3 billion, if it is just 10%.

[Mr Love]

The most deeply worrying thing about the evidence presented to the Committee was the attitude of the Pensions Minister, who did not seem to think that there was a problem. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he spoke lightly about the potential consequences of this loophole?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank my hon. Friend, who, as a fellow member of the Committee, attended those evidence sessions. The Pensions Minister confirmed that people can already use this tax scheme—there is no legislation to stop them doing so. The only difference is that the industry is gearing up for next April, and getting the HR processes in place, so that it can give people advice all at once, rather than employer by employer. Mr Greenwood said that he has talked with several people in the industry and that one company had already talked with 192 employers that are looking at that.

The ability to avoid NI in that way already exists, and the Government have a threshold of only £10,000 and nothing planned until after July as a response. That gives them a big headache, because the Prime Minister’s £7 billion tax give-away has been blown out of the water due to borrowing fears. Now another £2 billion or £3 billion is missing. That is £10 billion. The Government like to call the Opposition the debt party, but in fact it is they who have doubled the national debt. Now they will considerably increase borrowing because of the very fact that their own figures are out by a minimum of £10 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not looked at today’s GDP numbers, because they show that the sector that has grown most strongly is manufacturing.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Services.

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman mentions services, but manufacturing has grown by 1.3% in the last quarter and services by 0.9%. Even a Labour MP can work out that 1.3 is higher than 0.9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

The Opposition do have an anti-business agenda, but the Government are taking a different approach. We are reducing business taxes; we have introduced an employment allowance this month which will help small companies with their jobs tax; and of course next year we are taking under-21s out of the jobs tax. Labour’s plan is now not only to increase corporation tax; the party is discussing plans to put up the jobs tax, which would be a total disaster.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Since May 2010, long-term unemployment in my constituency has increased by 27%, long-term youth unemployment has increased by 40% and average real weekly wages have decreased by £116.93. Does the Chancellor want to take credit for that?

[Mr Osborne]

The hard-working people of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency should take credit for the fact that unemployment is down by 21% in his constituency and youth unemployment is down by 29% there.