Rt Hon Lord Lilley

    Mr. Lilley I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 60, line 30, leave out ‘subsection’ and insert ‘subsections’.
    The Second Deputy Chairman With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 60, line 36, at end insert—
    ‘(IB) The regulations to be made under this section shall provide that investors over the age of 55 shall not be restricted, within the overall annual contribution limits, in the amount that they may choose to invest in the form of—

    (a) cash, or
    (b) life insurance.’.
    No. 8, in page 60, line 36, at end insert—
    ‘(IC) The regulations to be made under this section shall provide that the charges made for administering an account such as is described in subsection (1A) above shall be no greater than the average charge made for administering a PEP in financial year 1998–99, such average to be calculated by the Treasury.’.

    Mr. Lilley The original plans for individual savings accounts were not only badly thought out but wrong in principle. The original proposals revealed Labour’s true intentions on private savings. Labour wanted to tax prudent savers, in effect retrospectively: those who had saved most prudently would face higher tax.
    We forced a U-turn on the issue. In a debate some weeks before the Budget, we won the argument, even though we could not win the vote, and the dismay on the faces of Labour Back Benchers was clear when Ministers were unable to put up any coherent defence of the proposals. We welcome the U-turn, humiliating though it may be for the Government.

    Unfortunately, the damage has in part been done, because, by publishing their intention to introduce retrospective changes in the taxation of savings vehicles already in existence and savings already accumulated, the Government have made people concerned that, at some future date, a Labour Government might behave in a similar fashion, when they think that they can get away with it. That has increased reluctance to save in the relevant forms. That is doubtless part of the reason for the decline in the savings ratio that is forecast in the Red Book. 76 Labour originally wanted to reduce the annual amount that people could save in tax-advantaged forms. Alas, that aspect remains in the revised proposals announced in the Budget and in the Bill. The maximum of £10,800 a year of tax-exempt savings will be reduced to only £5,000 a year.

    That is especially onerous on those approaching retirement. If they have not made sufficient provision earlier in their life, they will not get the benefits of compound interest that enable people to save lesser sums. Having fewer years to go, they may need to put more money aside. We should prefer a higher amount to be permitted to savers in, say, the last 10 years of their working life.

    Thinking that the Government were unlikely to respond to such a sensible measure, which breaks the very principle to which they are wedded, we have made, in amendment No. 7, a suggestion that came originally from Saga, which caters specifically for the over-50s and over-55s, to allow people in that age group greater flexibility on how they deploy their investments, within the —5,000 limit, so that they can do so in less risky ways if they feel that to be appropriate as they approach retirement and have less chance to ride out the ups and downs of the stock market over a longer period.

    The Government also wanted to cut the incentives. The cut in the July Budget remains, alas, in the current proposals. Under our Conservative tax system for people saving in personal equity plans, for every £80 net dividend, people got a £20 tax credit, whether they were non-taxpayers or basic rate taxpayers. Under the Government’s scheme, the non-taxpayers£those with the lowest incomes£will get no tax credit at all. That will penalise the least well-off relative to the tax regime that we used to have. I will be interested to see whether any Government Members stand up and defend that.

    Instead of getting £20 tax credit for every £80 of net dividend, basic rate taxpayers will get only £8.90, and that credit will disappear entirely after five years. The main beneficiaries from investing in equities in individual savings accounts will be top rate taxpayers. Is that what the Labour party envisaged when it was elected? Did it expect Ministers to introduce a scheme in which the primary benefits fall to top rate taxpayers and which limits any tax benefit to those on the lowest incomes and more than halves the benefit to basic rate taxpayers? Unfortunately, the costs of the scheme will absorb most of the tax benefit for basic rate taxpayers. The fourth characteristic of the Government’s proposals was that they were reckless about the costs of schemes. The £50,000 lifetime limit would have had the most adverse consequence on providers of savings vehicles, and we are delighted that, at least on the face of it, that has disappeared.

    Other complex rules persist and the sheer change in the rules from the previous system will require all suppliers to modify their systems£and incur costs in so doing. That will enhance costs and mean that a basic rate taxpayer with a modest tax credit will find much of the credit is absorbed by the extra costs imposed by that unnecessary change, unless the provider absorbs the costs; unit and investment trust providers sometimes do so.

    Our amendments would deal with some of those problems, but, alas, many of the problems inherent in the changes that the Government announced in November or 77 early December persist in the proposals in the Bill. We can only hope that the Government will be willing to make further changes in addition to the massive changes that they have already been forced to make in response to our arguments and widespread criticisms from the financial and savings community.

    — Later —

    Mr. Lilley I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 60, line 32, after ‘account’, insert
    ‘which may (if the investor so wishes) be retained for the remainder of his life’. One of the most significant proposals in the original plans that the Government announced for individual savings accounts was the one to introduce a lifetime limit of £50,000 as the maximum amount of tax-exempt savings that people could put into their replacements for PEPs and TESSAs. That was punitively low by comparison with the amount necessary to buy a modest pension. Indeed, I have already pointed out how small the amount is compared with what a long-serving Member of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who raised the issue, would be entitled to by way of a pension. To buy a pension equivalent to the hon. Gentleman’s would cost about £350,000, so setting a limit of £50,000 for people’s savings was a damaging threat.

    It was especially offensive that the proposals came from the Paymaster General, who has such large amounts in tax-favoured forms in the Channel Islands. That is why 94 there was such outrage in the country at the suggestion that this limit should be imposed. It was also wrong because it was unworkable in practice, in that following through people’s ownership of ISAs over a lifetime would be very difficult; monitoring and maintaining the requisite records would have imposed a great cost on the providers. We are therefore glad that the £50,000 limit has gone.

    The suspicion remains, however, that the Labour party would like to bring back the limit through the back door. The Government have promised to guarantee ISAs only for 10 years. In a possibly Freudian slip, the Paymaster General earlier today referred to people being allowed to invest £1,000 a year during the lifetime of the scheme. He clearly continues to think that there is to be a lifetime limit on investments in the scheme. The 10-year guaranteed life effectively means that people can put £5,000 a year aside for 10 years: we are back at the £50,000 lifetime limit, by the back door.

    Our suspicions are fuelled by the fact that the Government refused to put their so-called guarantee in legislation. Nowhere in the Bill is there to be found any assurance to those who take out ISAs that they will be able to keep them for any period, let alone 10 years. We believe that a period of 10 years is grossly inadequate. People want to be sure that, when they put money in such schemes, they can keep them for the rest of their lives. They are saving, by and large, for retirement. They do not want their tax exemptions to disappear after 10 years.

    We have therefore specified in this important amendment that, not just for 10 years but for the rest of their lives, people will be able to keep the ISAs that they have taken out. We should be interested to hear from the Paymaster General any reasons he has for opposing the amendment. We will look closely at his words, as we look suspiciously at his Freudian slip earlier today, to see whether the Government are suggesting that there should be some limit on the duration of the rather minimal tax reliefs available under the legislation that they propose.

    Mr. St. Aubyn I support amendment No. 6. No one who saw the success of PEPs and TESSAs would honestly claim that there was a good case for changing a successful system. I am not a keen supporter of ISAs, because they are second best. We had a thoroughly good scheme before. If we are to have ISAs, however, let the Opposition’s success in arguing for the lifting of the cap on ISAs be written into the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) urged.
    It is extraordinary how much power the Bill leaves to the discretion of the Treasury. In so many of the areas touched by the Bill, the Government want to keep all their cards up their sleeve. That is characteristic of this Government in so many aspects of their policy. Now we see it in their Treasury policy.

    There are only two reasons for rejecting the amendment. The first is that the Government wish to preserve the cap of £50,000 by the back door. The second is that they want to keep to themselves as much discretion and power as possible, and leave as little as they must for debate and scrutiny in the House of Commons.

    Amendment No. 6 would encourage people’s wider aspirations. We have heard the Government argue that the point of ISAs is to redirect savings incentives to those on lower incomes. We must all encourage those on lower 95 incomes to save, but, if they have very little discretionary money available for saving, the amount that we can encourage them to save through a discretionary scheme will be limited.

    If the Government want those on lower incomes to save more—for example, to provide more for their own needs in the future, particularly for their retirement needs—the Government should be honest and set out their proposals for a more rigorous and disciplined system for people to save for the long term. They would thereby make it clear that they want people to save for their future needs, not just for their future aspirations—additional spending opportunities over and above their needs.

    That is why most people would put money into ISAs, as they put money into PEPs and TESSAs. They put the money in because they did not need it immediately. In many cases, they did not need to save all the money, but they saw that, by saving it through that mechanism rather than spending it immediately, they might have wider spending opportunities. They might be saving towards a daughter’s wedding, a world cruise on their retirement or a second honeymoon. Such were the objectives of many people who put large sums into PEPs and TESSAs.

    Now the Government are changing the nature of the scheme and encouraging those on much lower incomes to get involved, but they cavil at the suggestion that people should put in more than £50,000. They do not want to give even that encouragement. They do not want people to venture even that far in their hopes and aspirations. It says a great deal about the Government that they are not prepared to make such a commitment.

    Mr. Gardiner I had no intention of speaking on the amendment, but I feel compelled to do so because of the cavalier way in which the Opposition insist on confusing a guarantee with a manacle. It is clear that the Chancellor has offered a guarantee that the scheme will continue for at least 10 years, because the Government appreciate the need to give long-term security to investors. It is to be welcomed, especially as it far exceeds any guarantee on PEPs made by the Conservatives when in government.

    Mr. St. Aubyn Is not the difference between the present Government and the previous one that the previous Government did not break the promises and undertakings they made before an election, in the context of PEPs and TESSAs? Because the Government sought to break their word, they must now give more cast-iron guarantees.

    Mr. Gardiner I am delighted to respond to that question. It is breathtaking to be lectured by the Opposition on a Government breaking their word. The Conservatives were indicted year on year for breaking their word in government, particularly their tax pledges. The categorical pledges on VAT made before the general election in 1992 were consigned to the waste paper bin within weeks afterwards. We will take no lectures on that.
    On clause 75, it is clear that the Chancellor sought to give some long-term security to investors who might be induced to come into ISAs. That was not previously done. 96 No Government would seek to manacle themselves in terms of tax for an indefinite period. That period might be as long as 70 years.

    Mr. Gibb The Government have caused enormous damage to the confidence of savers. The first colossal damage was done in the July Budget, when the Government decided to abolish the repayment of dividend tax credits. That took £5 billion a year out of the nation’s pension funds and dented people’s confidence in pension funds as a vehicle for savings. It dented the concept of savings.
    The Government then decided to announce the abolition of PEPs and TESSAs during the Finance Bill discussions in July and the months that followed. That, too, damaged people’s confidence in savings. The nonsense of the initial proposals for the £50,000 limit added to the lack of confidence in the savings tax regime. It is odd that the Chancellor feels the need to guarantee the survival of the ISA scheme for 10 years. When the Conservative Government introduced PEPs and TESSAs, they announced no such guarantee. Nobody believed that it was necessary to specify the length of the reliefs provided, because everyone assumed that they would last indefinitely. The purpose of those schemes was to encourage people to save for the long term, and those schemes were enormously successful.

    Mr. Hammond Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that people believed that the last Government were genuinely committed to the principle of encouraging long-term savings, whereas they believe that this Government have merely embarked on a cosmetic exercise?
    8.30 pm

    Mr. Gibb My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. I have asked myself why the Government have decided to abolish TESSAs and PEPs and replace them with ISAs, which are a pale facsimile. Why did the Government not simply tinker with TESSAs and PEPs? The only possible reason is that the Government want to be rid of a successful, Conservative-inspired policy for purely vindictive, political reasons.

    Mr. Loughton Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposal is in complete contrast to the message that we usually hear from Ministers? They claim repeatedly that they cannot commit a future Government to current measures. Therefore, there is no guarantee that this proposal will survive. What will happen in five years—

    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin) Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.

    Mr. Loughton What will happen in five years if the Government decide that too much tax relief is lost? That is what they did in this case, and they tried to penalise PEP holders retrospectively until we objected.

    Mr. Gibb My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Labour right hon. and hon. Members have given commitments that have subsequently been breached. The Labour party 97 gave a commitment during the election campaign that there would be no increases in taxation, yet, within two months of coming to power, Labour introduced measures that would raise £5 billion a year from the nation’s pension funds. It is clear that the Government have decided to abolish the successful TESSAs and PEPs and replace them with the less successful ISAs for purely dogmatic reasons. That decision will return to haunt them in the future.
    The Treasury Select Committee examined the 10-year guarantee, and its conclusions are quite damning. It makes the same point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchen and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) raises in the amendment. The report states:

    The abolition of the life-time limit was mentioned in the FSBR but not announced by the Chancellor in his speech; he did announce that the ISA system would continue in place for an initial ten years, with a review after seven years. As the annual investment limit is £5,000 (£7,000 in the first year), the effective total investment (apart from TESSA capital) would amount to only £52,000 after ten years. It is there in black and white in the report of the Treasury Select Committee, which comprises a majority of Government Members. The report states that the total investment would be only £52,000 after 10 years. It sounds as though the members of the Treasury Select Committee agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a lifetime limit by the back door because the amount one can invest is limited to

    only £52,000 after ten years”. Will the Paymaster General confirm that the Government do not intend to end the scheme after 10 years or to review it after seven years with the possibility of not continuing it after 10 years? If he provides that confirmation today, it will begin to redress the damage to savings that the Government have caused, and which they acknowledge in the declining savings ratio that is set out in a table in the Red Book.

    The Treasury Select Committee raised another issue regarding the prize draw, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) referred. Footnote 75 on page xi of the Treasury Select Committee report states:

    Another proposal which was dropped without mention in either the Chancellor’s speech or the FSBR was the monthly prize draw”. The Government have made another U-turn, sneaked out via a Budget press release and hidden in footnote 75 of the Treasury Select Committee’s report.

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson I find the Opposition’s argument on this amendment bizarre. The Conservatives were in office for 18 years, and PEPs and TESSAs ran for much of that time. Every document relating to those schemes always stated clearly—although not always in bold or in headlines on the front cover—that tax rates and reliefs could change and that the investor should be aware of that fact. That degree of uncertainty existed. Indeed, the view was put around the City towards the fag end of their tired Administration that the Tories were looking seriously at ways of curtailing the cost of tax reliefs.
    In this proposal, we are trying—I confirm to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman that the regulations will make it absolutely clear—to guarantee a minimum 10-year period in which tax reliefs will remain as they are now and cannot be reduced. That is an unprecedented guarantee for any Government to make. The Tories did not give similar assurances when they 98 were in government. We give that guarantee in order to ensure certainty in the market, long-term stability and a genuine incentive to save. Our proposal has met with an extremely strong response during the consultation period.

    Mr. Lilley The Paymaster General says that the regulations—which are not before the Committee and which are not available to inspect—will guarantee no reduction in tax relief during a 10-year period. Is he then saying that, after five years, the tax relief available to basic rate taxpayers will be extended and will continue for a full 10 years? In that case, the previous announcement that relief would end after five years is no longer valid.

    Mr. Robinson We mean exactly what we have said: tax reliefs will remain at at least their present levels for a 10-year period and we shall review the scheme.

    Mr. Lilley rose—

    Mr. Robinson I shall give way in a moment: I know the point that the right hon. Gentleman wants to make. What we have said is quite clear, and that is all we are saying: reliefs will last for 10 years and they will be reviewed after seven. The Government’s commitment carries considerable weight because everyone knows that this Government will review the scheme in seven years. It is totally irrelevant whether the Opposition decide to join us in that commitment or threaten to change or withdraw the scheme and reduce the tax relief, because everyone knows that the Tories will not be in office to do that. Our position is quite clear. There is sourness on the part of the Opposition that the measure has been so well received by the financial savings institutions in the City of London.

    Mr. Lilley I am sorry that I did not make myself clear to the Paymaster General, but this is an important point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the 10 per cent. tax credit for basic rate taxpayers taking out ISAs and investing in equities would disappear after five years; the Paymaster General has said that tax reliefs would remain unchanged for 10 years—which statement is true?

    Mr. Robinson We have made it clear that tax reliefs will be phased out after five years, and that remains the case.
    I turn to some points raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who was trying to be his usual helpful self but got into a terrible muddle. The proposals have been received extremely well. We are working for long-term stability. The clear commitment by existing institutions and by the new ones that want to join the scheme, such as Safeway and the other supermarkets, will ensure that we shall get new net savings.

    There will not be the simple displacement factor to which the noble Lord Lawson referred when he introduced the scheme. He said, “This is not really about net increases in savings—we do not believe that—but it will increase the habit of investing in equities.” That was the policy of the previous Government. Our policy is different: we want to generate genuine new savings. That is why we have no lock-in period and why we have guaranteed tax reliefs for 10 years, with a review after seven.

    99 It is unnecessary to go further than that at this stage. No Government have gone as far as that: the previous Government never gave a similar undertaking. All the documents relating to PEPs made it absolutely clear that tax reliefs could change and that people would have to guard against that. If the Opposition are minded to push their ridiculous proposition to a vote in this amendment, we shall have to resist it. In dividing the Committee, the Opposition would be going clearly against the wide acceptance of the stability of the long-term commitment that the Government’s proposal represents, which has been so well received by the industry.