On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the failure of the European Union (Referendum) Bill because the Labour and Liberal leaderships will not trust the British electorate on this issue, what guidance can you give on how best to proceed given that there is no money resolution?

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for me to offer guidance on that matter. Procedural matters relating to Bills which have been committed to Public Bill Committees are matters exclusively within the competence of the Chair of the said Committee. Moreover, as I rather imagine that he knows, but I emphasise for the awareness of Members of the House more widely, money resolutions are exclusively a matter for the Government. Those are waters in which the Speaker does not tread.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will take the point of order from Mr Andrew George first, and then I will come to him.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the provision and tabling of money resolutions, and further to your advice a moment ago, can you please tell the House on what previous occasions there have been circumstances where, on Second Reading of a private Member’s Bill, the will of this House has been clearly demonstrated through a desire to proceed with that Bill but has been frustrated by an Executive who are clearly abusing the privilege of their Executive power in the way that they are with the private Member’s Bill on affordable homes?

I do not wish any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but it is not for the Chair either to be subject to, or the purveyor of, a history lesson on these matters. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who is nothing if not an eager beaver, that he should consult the Journal Office, and I think that he will go away, as a result of so doing, significantly better informed.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the most violent and vitriolic abuse, using Twitter, of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), an individual was jailed for four weeks. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the abuse has worsened and deepened on precisely the same issue in the same violent way. If the medium used were a newspaper, I am quite certain that the House would demand that the editor be dragged to the Bar of the House and forced to explain himself or herself. What advice would you give, Mr Speaker, on how to handle the internet, and specifically Twitter, which is the medium by which this abuse against one of the Members of this House is continuing on a most violent and daily basis?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My immediate reaction is twofold. First, where a crime has been committed—he referenced at the outset of his point of order the fact of a crime and, indeed, of a conviction—that is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities. Secondly, and more widely, in so far as the hon. Gentleman has referenced an outrageous instance, or series of instances, of anti-Semitic abuse, I think that the whole House would be united in concluding that that behaviour was both despicable and beneath contempt. Although I would not ordinarily seek to personalise such matters, as the hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) being on the receiving end of this abuse, I think that decent people throughout the House and across the country would empathise entirely with the hon. Lady and share my own assessment of the people responsible for that gratuitous abuse. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

I am not sure that there is much further, but I will hear the hon. Gentleman.

The issue of criminality is well understood and is a matter for the police, not the House, but this is about the medium of communication. If it were a newspaper, then the newspaper would not be committing criminality by allowing itself to be used as the vehicle, and the House would want to have a view on how that newspaper should be held to account. There is precedent from 1956, with John Junor, on how that was done. How can the House hold Twitter to account for its failure to act to stop its platform being used for this abuse?

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the House can debate whatever the House wants to debate, and hon. Members can seek opportunities to air matters in the usual way. I have a hunch—it is reinforced by the wry grin emerging on the hon. Gentleman’s face—that the idea will by now have occurred to him, if it had not already done so, that he could seek to raise these matters in an Adjournment debate. I just have the sense, although I am of course not psychic, that his application will be winging its way to the appropriate quarter before the close of the day.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We now finally have the overarching report into the suspension of the Leeds children’s heart unit, which has exposed very serious failures in the safe and sustainable review process and clear abuse of whistleblowing by both NHS medical professionals and officials. We have not heard anything about any statement, which we clearly need from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, finally to put this matter to rest and allow Members to contribute to that closure so that all such units can move on. May I seek your advice on how we might be able to do that?

If memory serves me correctly, Health questions took place relatively recently so it may be some little while before the next scheduled session takes place. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that as he raised his point of order, no less illustrious a figure than the Deputy Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), was sitting, as he still is, on the Treasury Bench, and his point will have been heard. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have business questions tomorrow, and I just have a sense that he will be in his place to raise this matter and to demand a statement from the Government.

He will have to cancel his train ticket now. [Interruption.]

People are going on about train tickets. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was not proposing to toddle off to Leeds tomorrow morning, but if he was, he might decide to reconsider and to be present for business questions. Only time will tell; we shall see.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Railways Act 1993 to permit public sector railway operators; and for connected purposes.

Twenty years after privatisation, it is clear that passengers are getting a raw deal. The Tories’ botched privatisation in the 1990s has led to a fragmented railway, which is less efficient to run and more expensive to use than other networks across Europe. The franchise process simply does not work in its current form. The collapse of the west coast main line franchise, at a cost of more than £55 million to the taxpayer, shows just how broken the system is.

On the east coast, where a public operator has performed really well in recent years, it is banned by law from seeking to carry on as the operator. How can it be right that East Coast Main Line Ltd is the only operator in the world that cannot bid to run this service in the future, despite a track record of success? East Coast has shown that a public option can work for our railways. Every penny of profit that it makes has been reinvested back into the service. For example, East Coast contributed £1.3 million to the £3.3 million upgrade of Peterborough station, which I and my constituents use.

Instead of continuing this success story, the Government want to re-privatise the east coast main line at an estimated cost of £6 million. That money would be better spent on improving the service, rather than satisfying the Tory obsession with privatisation. Labour is the only party with a plan to reform the railways and put passengers first. With this Bill, I am very pleased to support the brilliant work of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the shadow rail Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the shadow Transport Secretary, who have set out the reforms that we need.

The next Labour Government will review this Government’s failed franchising process as a priority. After the chaos of recent years, we will act to safeguard taxpayer and passenger interests by putting in place a system that is fit for purpose. We will learn the lessons of the east coast main line, where we have seen the benefits of a not-for-dividend operator, by legislating to allow a public sector operator to take on lines and challenge the train operators on a genuinely level playing field and in the public interest. That will help to secure value for money for passengers and taxpayers.

As a Co-operative MP, I am pleased that we have pledged that the next Labour Government will explore co-operative and mutual solutions and the benefits of co-operative principles, and increase the involvement of passengers and employees in transport by giving them a much greater say in the industry. The Co-operative party’s reports, “Rail Cymru” and “A People’s Railway for Scotland”, explore the options for Scotland and Wales. As a localist, I am pleased that Labour is committed to devolving decisions across all areas of the UK on the running of regional and local services, so that areas can bring trains, buses, ferries and trams together into a single network.

We must tackle the monopoly market for rail rolling stock by giving Network Rail greater responsibility for developing a long-term plan for the procurement and leasing of new rail rolling stock. We will create a guiding mind for the railways by bringing Network Rail together with a representative passenger rail body to contract routes; co-ordinate services and skills in the industry; oversee stations, fares and tickets; and ensure that there is customer satisfaction across the network. We will ease the pressure on fare payers through the efficiencies that our reforms release, by capping annual fare rises on every route, by simplifying fare structures and by creating a new legal right to the cheapest ticket. I know that those proposals will be welcomed by many of my constituents.

Corby and east Northamptonshire are served by private and public sector rail operators. The contrasting experiences of my constituents demonstrate the need for my Bill. Corby, which is served by East Midlands Trains, recently celebrated five years since Labour opened the new railway station. Corby is the fastest growing town in the country. It was once known as the largest town in Europe without access to a railway system. Use of the station has doubled since it was opened in 2009. It takes 70 minutes on the train from St Pancras. The station is a symbol of Labour’s investment in the regeneration of Corby and it has given a big boost to the local economy. It was campaigned for by the former Labour MP, Phil Hope, and by Labour councillors, and it was delivered by a Labour Government. We are now working to increase the frequency of trains and calling for new northbound services.

However, we cannot celebrate the fares that passengers face. They are way too high and they price out many people. A constituent told me the other day that he had a medical appointment in London, but he did not know how he would find the more than £100 needed to get there. A Corby to London season ticket costs £7,400 and an open return costs £105. Many constituents in the east Northamptonshire side of my constituency, such as those who live in the town of Oundle or in villages such as Warmington, travel from Peterborough station on the east coast line.

Although the fares on the east coast main line are still high, the rate at which they have increased has been hugely different. Since 2010, a standard anytime open return ticket from Peterborough to London has increased by £12, or 14%. The equivalent fare from Corby on East Midlands Trains has risen by £20 since 2010, which is almost twice the rate of increase at 24%. This year, East Coast has raised its fares by an average of 1.21%, which represents a genuine real-terms cut in the cost of living for passengers. No private franchisee has taken that step. It would be fair to say that many of my constituents who use Peterborough station still feel that fares are too high, but by comparison, East Coast is keeping fare rises down.

More than that, East Coast is performing better for passengers. It has achieved record passenger satisfaction and punctuality rates since 2009. It has introduced almost 7,000 more trains a year, and 500,000 more passengers are travelling on the franchise. East Coast has partly funded and helped to deliver a major programme of station upgrades, including at Peterborough station. It is also performing for the taxpayer, having returned more than £800 million to the Treasury.

East Coast’s passengers and the employees who have worked to make East Coast a success in public hands will not understand why the operator is prevented from taking on the running of other lines, let alone why it is banned from continuing to operate the east coast line. Because of the Tory rules, we will have a situation where European public rail companies can run lines in this country, but our British-owned operator cannot.

I completely agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield and for Nottingham South that, instead of Tory dogma and an obsession with privatisation, we need a different approach that puts the public interest first, that reverses the presumption against the public sector and that serves the passenger properly. It is time for reform of an industry that sucks up a vast amount of subsidy, and seems loth to invest it back into the service of which it is custodian, and that provides little redress for passengers stung by ever-increasing fare hikes—[Interruption.]

The Tories and the Lib Dems are wedded to the status quo: only Labour has a plan for reforming the railways—a new model, with a strong voice from and control by the people who pay for the railways, the taxpayer and the fare payer, and a strong voice for employees who stay working on the railway no matter the colour of the uniform or the paint on the trains. The next Labour Government will review the failed franchising process; legislate to allow a public sector operator to take on the lines; devolve decisions over the running of regional and local services; tackle the monopoly market for rail rolling stock; address the cost of living by capping annual fare rises on every route; simplify fare structures; create a new legal right to the cheapest ticket; and, as Conservative Members have shown today, we will do it all in the face of their opposition. They are standing up for the wrong people. The Bill is just the first step to a railway in which passengers are put first.

I oppose the motion and urge the House to reject the arguments put forward. The privatised industry is actually a success—freight tonnage is up and passenger numbers continue to rise. What we have heard from the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) will be detrimental to the industry, to employees and especially to passengers. It is based on a redundant political dogma. Labour Members who yearn for bygone days when people were prepared to look to the state to run their buses and trains should come to terms with the modern world.

Wisely, the previous Labour Government made no attempt to reverse the policy during their 13 years of misrule—[Interruption.] Thirteen wasted years, indeed. The change in direction since the days of Tony Blair is striking. The Opposition clearly have no ambition to win elections any more. The very phrase “directly operated railways” conjures memories of a past in which giant state conglomerates ran great swathes of our industry at enormous expense to the taxpayer—[Interruption.] The eyes of Labour Members light up at talk of subsidy. They yearn for the opportunity to subsidise failed industries again—[Interruption.]

Order. That is very unseemly conduct from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I know you are an excitable chap and a keen parliamentarian, but the voice of Cleethorpes must be heard.

Subsidies and propping up ailing businesses at taxpayers’ expense are things that Labour Members understand, but taxpayers want value for money. They want reduced fares, lower taxes and a good railway, which is what we are achieving under the privatised system. Is Labour actually advocating renationalisation? That is what it sounds like. The plan would take us back a generation. It would create a rigged market and passengers would suffer. Under Labour’s plan, the state would write the rules of the franchise, then the state would bid and then the state would decide who had won the race. It would be complex, costly and about an ideological obsession.

The east coast is a service on life support. It was rescued by the Department for Transport and it does not pay the same access charges. Labour’s plan would be costly—up to £500 million. First, the state would have to pay the cost of compiling the bids at up to £10 million a bid. With 15 franchises in England alone, the bill could be more than £100 million. The hon. Member for Corby did not say where that money would be found. Presumably, in line with normal Labour practice, it would be an additional burden on the taxpayer. Secondly, under Labour’s plan, the state would also have to take on the working capital cost of any franchise it operated, amounting to £400 million for the network. In addition, if the bidding process were to be truly level, performance bonds, season ticket bonds, risk capital and default would all have to be taken into account.

My constituency takes its name from the east coast’s premier seaside resort, but it also contains the largest port complex in the UK, an international airport and 10 railway stations. Only last week, a parliamentary Committee gave the go-ahead for the development of the south Humber marine energy park by Able UK, with 4,000 potential jobs. That further strengthens the need for better connectivity and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry)—whom I was delighted to welcome to Cleethorpes only two weeks ago—will know that that would improve the potential of south Humber and north Lincolnshire even more.

It is private sector railway companies that will provide better services. I remember the days when I could jump on a train in Cleethorpes to go to Doncaster and I would share the carriage with one man and his dog. Thanks to the private operator First TransPennine Express, we have an excellent hourly service and I have every confidence that the Minister will maintain it. We need services expanding and electrification of the line into Immingham, where 25% of the nation’s rail freight starts or ends. I urge the House to reject the motion. The Bill would be a step backwards that my party and I will not support.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Lord Bichard KCB to the Office of Chair of the National Audit Office.

This is only the second time that a Prime Minister has moved a motion to appoint the chair of the National Audit Office and the first time the process has been applied to someone new to the role. It is a direct result of our Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 to strengthen the governance of the National Audit Office. At a time when we are working hard to deal with our debts, it reflects the critical role of the NAO in scrutinising public expenditure and safeguarding the interests of hard-working taxpayers.

First, I would like to thank Professor Sir Andrew Likierman who is standing down when his term of office ends in January. As the NAO’s inaugural independent chair, he has played a vital role in establishing the NAO board as an effective governance body.

The proposed new chair, Lord Bichard, has been chosen following an open competition by a selection panel that included the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the Auditor General for Scotland and the permanent secretary of the Treasury. Lord Bichard has had a distinguished career in local and central Government. His many roles have included chief executive of Brent and Gloucestershire local authorities, chief executive of the Benefits Agency and permanent secretary of the Department for Employment, which then became the Department for Education and Employment. He led the vital inquiry into child protection measures following the horrific Soham murders, and also served as chair of the Legal Services Commission, chair of the Design Council and founding director at the Institute for Government.

I believe Lord Bichard’s extensive experience across the public sector makes him an outstanding choice as the independent chair of the National Audit Office, and I have no hesitation in commending this motion to the House.

This is the second occasion when we have had time set aside in the House to debate the public appointment of the chair of the National Audit Office. I warmly welcome and support the process whereby both the Executive and the legislature are involved in the appointment to this important post, and the fact that the Prime Minister is present to propose to the House the appointment of Lord Bichard. I join him in thanking Sir Andrew Likierman for his excellent stewardship of the organisation over the past few years since its inception.

I have known Michael Bichard for many years. Indeed, I first met him before he joined the civil service when he was working as a chief executive in local government. He is a man of outstanding ability and clear judgment, and he brings to the role vast experience across the public sector from his roles in local government, leading a government agency and leading a Government Department. He has also run a very successful higher education institution and was involved in establishing the Institute for Government as its first director. I have every confidence in his ability to fulfil this new role.

I agree with the Prime Minister that in the current times, with continuing pressures to reduce public expenditure and borrowing, we need a strong, fearless and high quality National Audit Office to provide well-evidenced information on how the taxpayers’ pound is being spent. Sir Michael’s long experience and undoubted knowledge and expertise make him an excellent choice as chair of this important institution. I am delighted to be able to support the motion before the House.

I support the motion. Two years ago, when the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 set up the chair of the National Audit Office, there were two chief concerns: to strengthen the governance of the National Audit Office in a way which, it was widely agreed, it could benefit from; and to ensure at the same time the continued statutory independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General in exercising his statutory functions. The CAG is an officer of the House of Commons, and it is vital that his independence and ability to undertake inquiries, wherever he—or she, were there a female doing the job—feels necessary, is unfettered. The 2011 Act needed to pull off the trick of providing both for the chair to have the ability to advise the CAG, and for the CAG to have regard to that advice while at the same time continuing to have

“complete discretion in the carrying out of…functions”.

This House owes a debt of gratitude to Professor Sir Andrew Likierman for the way he has carried out that task. I have every confidence that Lord Bichard, who has a very distinguished career in public service, will be able to perform the same function with equal skill. I have no hesitation in commending the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Security in retirement has been a central part of the Government’s agenda. It is important that we adapt to the needs of a population who live longer and who are increasingly active in old age. In the course of this Parliament we have significantly improved the state support on offer to pensioners. From April 2016, the new state pension will give people certainty about what they can expect from the state during their retirement and reduce the likelihood that they will require means-tested benefits. The triple lock introduced at the beginning of this Parliament ensures that increases for the basic state pension will not be outstripped by earnings, growth or inflation. This means that pensioners are now £440 a year better off than they would have been had the state pension only been increased by average earnings since 2011.

We have also taken steps to help people saving for their retirement. Automatic enrolment, introduced in 2012, gives all employers a duty to enrol all eligible employees into a qualifying pension scheme. In the past two years, approximately 4 million people have been newly enrolled into a pension. By the time the programme is fully rolled out in 2016 up to 9 million will be newly saving for their retirement. This radical reform will transform our culture of saving and increase the amount being saved in workplace pensions by about £11 billion a year.

Automatic enrolment will ensure that individuals have the opportunity to save into a pension, but we also need to ensure that when they come to access those savings they get a fair deal. This Government have always believed in personal responsibility. If people work hard and save all their lives, when they reach retirement they should be given the freedom to choose how they spend those savings. Through the Bill, we are introducing fundamental reforms to how people can access their defined contribution pension savings. This is the most radical change in the way people take their pensions for almost a century. The Bill contains provisions to: remove the limits on withdrawals from drawdown; make annuities more flexible; create a new way to take money directly from one’s pension savings; prevent the reforms from being exploited for unintended tax purposes; and restrict and reduce tax charges payable on certain lump sum death benefits.

We have consulted extensively on how best to implement these changes. Given that it is a highly technical and complex area, we have also taken the step of publishing a briefing, available on gov.uk, which explains clearly what each section of the Bill does. Alongside that, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs guidance, which is also on the gov.uk website, explains in more detail how the changes are intended to work. The Department for Work and Pensions’ Pension Schemes Bill, which is in Committee, covers the regulatory side to those freedoms, notably the guidance guarantee. These issues are being debated thoroughly as part of the Bill.

Will the Minister explain why there has been a change in terminology from “advice”—which the Chancellor mentioned in his introduction of the proposed measures—to “guidance”, which, unlike advice, legal protections are not associated with?

We made it clear, in the documentation that was published at the time of the March Budget, that the legal status of the support we have provided is “guidance”. That means that there is not a recommendation of a specific product; none the less, that support will be hugely helpful for those who will face choices. It is right that the role that we play—or facilitate—is about providing support in the form of guidance, rather than making recommendations of particular products.

I would like to provide Members with an overview of the different parts of the Bill. At Budget 2014, the Chancellor announced that everyone with a defined contribution pension could take it as they wished from age 55, and would no longer be subject to drawdown limits or income tests before being able to take their money flexibly. The current system denies people flexibility at the point of taking their pension. For those with the smallest and largest pension savings, there is the option to take their pension as cash, but for everyone else there are considerable restrictions. They have two main options: purchase an annuity or enter capped drawdown. Capped drawdown limits how much someone can take out each year to an amount calculated by reference to the amount they might have received from an annuity purchased with their fund.

Flexible drawdown already lets those with very high levels of savings to take their money however they want, taxed at their marginal rate, if they can prove that they have a guaranteed pension income for the rest of their life of at least £12,000. The Government have already reduced that from £20,000 to give many more people flexibility, but the first main change provided for in the Bill goes much further, making unlimited drawdown available to anyone with a defined-contribution pension and removing the limits on what can be withdrawn from those funds.

The Bill also ensures that existing drawdown funds can, if the individual wants, be converted to flexi-access drawdown, so that those currently in capped drawdown will be able to benefit too. The aim of the changes is to give all the 320,000 people who retire every year with defined contribution savings greater choice about how to access those savings, regardless of how big their pension pot is. The changes will take effect from 6 April 2015.

Some people think that this change—allowing everyone access to their own hard-earned money—will cause people to spend recklessly what they made sacrifices to save. The Government do not agree. Those who have saved the money over a lifetime should be trusted to make their own decisions about how best to use it to provide themselves with an income in retirement. Through the guidance guarantee, we are making sure that customers have access to impartial guidance on how to make the most of their money.

Will the Minister give way?

I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.

We agree that it is important that people can access their money and use it how they best see fit, but might not the introduction of these flexibilities lead to there being so many products on offer that some unscrupulous people might offer individuals unsuitable products? What will the Government do to ensure that people are not mis-sold products that are not suitable for them or, indeed, that err on the side of illegality?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

To follow up the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), there has been a suggestion that the change could lead to a windfall for the Treasury at a time when that would be very helpful for future Budgets. What does the Minister say to that suggestion, which has been made by some in the real world out there?

The numbers that we and the OBR believe are likely to be changed as a consequence of the policy were set out in the March document. We very much doubt that there will be a huge windfall for the Exchequer as a consequence of these changes, whatever the appeal of that might be. As I have said, some revenues have been moved from future years into earlier years, but some of the claims about the impact are somewhat exaggerated and highly unlikely.

To pick up on the important point made by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, will the Minister seriously consider putting on the face of the Bill a criminal offence of trying to deceive people out of their pension savings? That will act as a deterrent to unscrupulous organisations or individuals from the moment the legislation goes on to the statute book.

The Financial Conduct Authority has already made it clear that if, for example, anyone attempts to present themselves as providing guidance under the guidance guarantee when they are not in a position to do so, that will be looked at very seriously. There is a strong determination to ensure that the dishonest, the unscrupulous and those seeking to mislead people are treated very seriously indeed. We are talking, after all, about a regulated sector, and those who try to conduct regulated activities who are not properly regulated already face offences. I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about whether we are determined to address those who try to defraud our constituents. Yes, we are absolutely determined to address that, and the FCA is very engaged in that process.

I, too, would like to press the Minister on the issue of consumer protection. At the moment, if someone gets bad advice from a financial adviser, they have a degree of protection through the FCA. If people receive advice from those who are not professionals in financial matters—the Minister has conceded that these are complex matters—what comeback will they have?

As I say, the FCA is very engaged in this area and has already set out its determination to ensure that those seeking to mislead face punishment. The FCA has responsibility for ensuring that regulated firms treat their customers fairly and communicate in a way that is clear and not misleading. We believe that it has considerable powers here. Of course, the Pension Schemes Bill is also important in ensuring that the FCA puts in place standards for the guidance guarantee—standards that anyone delivering that service must comply with.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention so quickly. He has been careful in his words regarding the FCA. We are talking about those who are manipulative and try to deceive people out of their entire life’s pension; it is a really serious issue. I would like him to confirm that when he refers to “serious” punishment and this being taken “very seriously”, it means a criminal conviction for these people. Will he confirm that that is how seriously the FCA will treat this offence?

The FCA will certainly treat this extremely seriously. I entirely share the hon. Lady’s view that this is an important matter and that it is right to take the strongest action to ensure that those who attempt to defraud our constituents of their life savings face severe sanctions. This Bill is about the tax changes; the Pension Schemes Bill deals with the wider issues, and it gives the FCA powers to set standards for the guidance guarantee. Regulated firms have responsibilities to treat their customers fairly, and the FCA has made it clear that it expects firms to comply with that, in this context as in others.

Even the Association of British Insurers says that there should be more regulation around this issue. Is the Minister listening closely to what the ABI is saying?

We of course engage closely with the ABI and other bodies involved in this area. Indeed, the work in this Bill and in the Pension Schemes Bill is a result of close engagement with the ABI. The Government are determined to ensure that we have a regulatory system that protects our constituents from the unscrupulous. This is principally an issue for the FCA, but we are determined to ensure that it has the powers that it needs. Much in the Pension Schemes Bill relates to that.

May I remind the Minister that one reason for bringing forward these freedoms was to try to tackle the mis-selling that already goes on, whereby people are effectively forced by the law to buy annuities, which in many cases are totally unsuitable for them? That has led to real cases of detriment. The mis-selling issues under these freedoms are not new; they have been around for a long time.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think that anyone would be particularly attracted to the argument that the way to address mis-selling was to force people into a narrow range of products that ultimately did not meet their needs.

rose—

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.

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”.

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.

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?

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.

The Minister is indeed being generous with his time. May I ask when the Treasury is likely to publish its assessment of the risks associated with the delivery of this project? It has obviously identified a number of such risks, and it would be helpful for everyone to see the assessment.

A number of elements are involved. We have already estimated the costs resulting from the Budget announcement, and, as is customary, we will update the House about the cost of further changes that we have made in the autumn statement. We need to take account of a number of policy announcements that have been made since the Budget. The information will be available once the numbers have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility—that is, at the time of the autumn statement.

The last change that I want to explain is the change that the Government are making to the tax charges on pensions when someone dies. We will table amendments in due course to enact those changes in detail, but the Bill currently provides for certain lump sums to be paid from pension schemes when someone dies under the age of 75. It ensures that when someone dies with money in a drawdown account before reaching the age of 75 and a lump sum is paid from it, that sum can be paid tax-free. It also ensures that if someone dies with a pension after reaching the age of 75, the tax charge on a lump sum paid from it is reduced from 55% to 45%, and it reduces the tax charge when someone over 75 receives a serious ill-health lump sum to 45%.

The Bill makes a number of other changes, which I will summarise briefly. They include the introduction of a permissive statutory override, which will allow schemes to make the types of payments set out in this Bill without the need to change their scheme rules; provisions to ensure that the new system is reflected in the rules governing overseas schemes involving UK tax-relieved funds; allowing payments from guaranteed annuities to be paid to beneficiaries as a lump sum if they are under £30,000; and measures to ensure that people cannot gain an unintended tax advantage by becoming temporarily non-resident.

Our pension reforms have been extensive and fundamental. We have taken steps to provide a solid foundation for private saving by reforming the state support that is on offer and introducing automatic enrolment. However, it is also vital to give people an informed choice, and the Bill introduces welcome changes to ensure that that happens. It makes the tax system fairer by ensuring that people have more choice in regard to how they access their savings, while also preventing people from exploiting the new flexibility in order to gain unintended tax advantages. At the heart of it are three key principles: responsibility, fairness, and individual choice. I commend it to the House.

I look forward to an interesting debate on the detail of the Bill, both today and in Committee.

Opening the debate on Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill, the Minister for Pensions said:

“we will be very busy over the remaining months…taking the pensions system to a…better place.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 195.]

I agree with the first part of that statement: we will indeed be very busy. As for the second part, the extent to which we can improve the Bill remains to be seen. The efficacy of any Bill should be judged only according to its outcomes, and at this stage there are a number of concerns about the outcomes of this Bill, which are far from certain. There are a number of unanswered questions. My hon. Friends have asked a number of them today, and I am sure that more will arise during the Bill’s passage.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said at the time of the Budget, the reforms in the Bill will change the pensions landscape dramatically, in the ways in which people take income in retirement and the pensions industry is structured. As the Minister has explained, from 6 April 2015 those aged 55 and older—I should perhaps declare an interest, as I am a member of that age group—will be granted far more freedom. They will be able to gain access to as much of their pension savings as they wish, as often as they wish.

The Minister for Pensions has described the Opposition’s view of the new freedom as “ambivalent”, but that is something of a misrepresentation. We are not ambivalent about what the Bill purports to achieve. Since the reforms were announced in the Budget statement, our position has been consistent, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I shall restate it. We support increased flexibility and choice for savers, which is why we have long advocated reform of the annuities market to help people shop around to get a better deal. However, it would be remiss of us not to identify and highlight the potential problems and pitfalls that the Bill presents. One of my main concerns, which has already been raised today, relates not just to what it seeks to achieve, but to the speed at which it seeks to achieve it.

Does the shadow Minister agree that, given the increasing array of choices now available, one of the most important decisions anyone can make will be how comfortably can they live in retirement? The guidance and help the Government provide on making these difficult choices is very poor.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point which I will deal with in some detail. It is one of the most crucial issues not just in respect of the Bill, but of the wider pensions landscape.

There is confusion as to what the proposals will mean in practice because there has not been the discussion across the political spectrum and among social partners that took place for the accumulation stage—making sure that more people save for their retirement. There has been little if any discussion about the decumulation stage, beyond criticising annuities. That is part of the problem with this process: the Government pulled a rabbit out of a hat at the Budget, without building a broad consensus to ensure that everybody is on board.

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point which I will address in due course. Before I do so, I want to put on the record one of the concerns expressed by the TUC, which, in keeping with the point made by my hon. Friend, said that it believes that

“the measures contained in the Bill are being rushed in, thus overturning the emphasis on consensus and consultation that has been a positive feature of pensions policy making over the last decade.”

Is my hon. Friend concerned that, given the speed of these changes, some of the other longer-term reforms such as auto-enrolment may be impacted on? Is she worried that these issues might not have been properly looked at?

There are two pension Bills running side by side in the House and I do not want to stray into discussing the detail of the other one which is being considered in Committee—I am sure you would not allow me to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point.

The hon. Lady is being very generous in taking a number of interventions. She has the opportunity to confirm that the Labour party would support an amendment to the Bill to make it a specific criminal offence for unscrupulous, so-called pensions advisers to swindle innocent people out of their pensions and lifetime savings. Is that not a valuable amendment that could easily be made and confirmed by the Financial Secretary this afternoon?

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I listened carefully to her intervention on the Financial Secretary. As a constituency MP, I am aware of people who have been swindled out of their life savings through unregulated, unscrupulous people giving them bad advice; indeed, the Financial Secretary has heard me talk about this issue when considering other Bills. I am very interested in what the hon. Lady said about such an amendment, which we would want to consider to give as much protection as possible to consumers.

A point that the Financial Secretary skirted round when he announced the changes to annuities was that they can now go down, as well as up, as a result of this legislation. Does that not bear out the concern raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? If such flexibility is provided for the providers, there is a real danger that people could be sold a pup and find that their income unexpectedly diminishes over time?

That is an important point, and these are exactly the reasons why it might have been useful if more time had been provided for discussion within the industry and with the partners in the process, so that we can get to that better place that I talked about at the outset. It is not just about giving people more choice; it is about giving them the ability to make choices that are wise not only at the moment when they choose to draw down or take part of the lump sum, but that are based on providing for the future.

One of our concerns is that although the reforms may well give greater choice, we have to consider whether that greater choice translates into better value and a better deal for those involved in the process. People making use of the flexibility will of course have new opportunities, but as we have heard, new opportunities potentially bring new risks. Those who purchase the wrong products, invest unwisely or fall victim to unscrupulous practices in the unregulated market will see their money swiftly evaporate. Those who use the new flexibility to take out cash from their pension savings may find that they are paying a higher rate of tax. We can also expect a deluge of new products to flood the market, and while some of them may well be good, by the very nature of things, some may well be less so. That is why it is important that people get good-quality guidance to help them make the right choice.

Is my hon. Friend concerned about the question of the capacity to deliver the advice that the guidance guarantee is meant to supply? According to evidence that the Pension Schemes Bill Committee took last week, the figure is less than 25%. It is not just that poor advice might be given; there may be none at all.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I read with interest the transcript of the Committee’s evidence session. People need good-quality guidance to help them make the right choices. We must guard against mis-selling, for example—we cannot afford a repeat of the payment protection insurance scandal. We must prevent people from falling victim to exploitation and illegality. We know that pension liberation fraud has already endangered millions of pounds in savings, affecting many people. That is the reason why I am concerned about the way the Government have handled these reforms, which to some seem a bit rushed and haphazard.

Is there not also the concern that people will end up spending a lot more of the pensions they have drawn down into savings accounts on social care? This Government have forcibly removed £4 billion from adult social care budgets, so we know that people are paying more for social care. If the money is held just in savings accounts, many more people will end up being liable for those costs.

The point my hon. Friend makes is absolutely crucial for many people, which it is why it is so important that they get guidance, so they can make sensible decisions to provide for the long term. I will say a bit more about social care and other services later, if I have the opportunity to do so.

After the Chancellor announced the overall pensions reforms to the House in the Budget statement, we set out three tests against which we believe they should be measured. The first was the advice test: would there be robust advice for people on providing for their retirement and measures to prevent mis-selling? The second was the fairness test: that the new system would be fair, with those on middle and low incomes still being able to access the products that give them the certainty in retirement that they want. The third was the cost test: that the Government must ensure that these reforms do not result in extra costs to the state, either through social care or pensioners falling back at a later stage on means-tested benefits such as housing benefit. We stand by those tests and would argue that so far, the Government have been unable to give assurances on any of those points.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a study carried out by Ipsos MORI which showed that 12% of those who were eligible to do so would withdraw their pension pot entirely next year? When asked what they would do with it, one in five suggested that they would use at least part of it for a holiday.

Yes, I am indeed aware of that report. I shall go on to raise similar concerns and seek answers from the Minister to them in due course.

In addition to setting the three tests, we have also commissioned a retirement income taskforce, chaired by Professor David Blake of the pensions institute at the Cass business school. We wanted to look at how we could enhance retirement income and ensure that savers had access to good-value products alongside the support that they needed.

I would argue that our position on pensions has been consistent ever since our time in government. When the Labour Government took office in 1997, there was a crisis of pensioner poverty resulting from a decline in the value of the state pension under the Conservatives. There was also a crisis of trust in private pension provision following the mis-selling scandals that previous reforms had opened the way to. Responding to those challenges, the Labour Government built a robust regulatory framework to police and protect people’s pensions. That framework included the Pension Protection Fund. We also laid the groundwork for the universal state pension with a triple lock guarantee, and established the National Employment Savings Trust to help people to save for their retirement.

The reason that I mention those reforms is that none of them was rushed through. They were all based on sound evidence and consultation, and they had the common aim of helping people to make the right choices while affording them the certainty and security in retirement that they deserved. We now have to consider whether the present Government’s approach to pension reform has been consistent, or whether it seems at times to be erratic and contradictory.

To be fair, things began well for this Government. The single-tier pension and the auto-enrolment legislation represented positive steps to build on the progress made by the previous Government. Those reforms were based on evidence, consultation and consensus. That was acknowledged by, among others, Otto Thoresen, the director-general of the Association of British Insurers, who said that

“good consultation and a good period to execute”

improved the chances of legislation being successful.

However, the Government’s approach to the latest pension reforms, announced in the Budget statement, appears disjointed. Prior to announcing the reforms, they did not consult, either consumers or the industry. This has resulted in some of the issues that have been raised today not being flagged up at that time, and in the Government’s argument losing some of its intellectual rigour.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to the comments of the shadow Minister for Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill, in which he highlighted the discord between the Government’s stance on pensions in the accumulation and retirement phases. That has been commented on today as well. In the accumulation phase, the Government’s approach—one that the Labour Government had fostered—is founded on the recognition that the pensions landscape is complex and difficult to navigate. That approach harnesses inertia to encourage pension savings, with individuals employed without pension schemes being placed on them by default. That is a sensible approach and it has proved effective.

However, the Government’s approach to the retirement stage, as outlined in the latest reforms, departs from that model, shifting the emphasis from the importance of accumulation to the ease of access. This Bill places the onus of choice back on the individual, working on the assumption that they will be able successfully to navigate what my hon. Friend the shadow Pensions Minister has called the “jungle of financial products”. He referred to there being a “tension” between the two approaches. He has been a friend of mine for many years, and I think that that is typical of his diplomatic way of expressing himself. The Association of British Insurers has also noted that tension, observing that:

“Automatic enrolment has seen millions more people saving for their retirement and further pension reforms should build on this. We are very concerned that the focus of recent discussion around the Freedom and Choice reforms is on early access to cash at age 55 rather than on building assets for income in retirement.”

The Minister referred to the fact that the Bill introduces the option of taking uncrystallised funds pension lump sums. I have to say that I have not been able to think of a better acronym than the one he came up with, try as I might. As he said, that provision will allow people to withdraw money directly from their pensions without first designating it for drawdown. Individuals will be able to take 75% of each withdrawal tax free, with the rest taxed at the marginal rate. This has been described by some as allowing people to use their pension almost like a bank account. More than any other measure in this Bill, it will expedite people’s access to their pension.

I should like to probe the Government’s thinking on this point a bit further. In searching for greater clarity, I repeat the question that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister put to the Pensions Minister in the earlier debate. He asked:

“If auto-enrolment policy was correct to assume that individuals need to be guided, helped and encouraged into better pension decisions, why do we no longer think that is the case at retirement?”—[Official Report, 2 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 206.]

Perhaps the Minister will be able to respond to that question when he sums up the debate today.

In the meantime, I think we all agree that the Bill will increase innovation and result in a raft of new pension products entering the market. In many ways, that would be a good thing but, as I have said before, the flipside to freedom and choice is risk and complexity.

As ever, the hon. Lady is making a thoughtful and probing speech. It would be fair to say, however, that her tone is not one of great enthusiasm for greater flexibility and choice in the pensions system. Will she tell the House whether her party is considering reversing the changes that we are introducing today?

I am surprised by the Minister’s comment. I see it as my duty and responsibility as the shadow Minister to make thoughtful and probing speeches. I also said at the outset that we welcomed the opportunities that increased flexibility would bring, but people need to understand that the flipside to that freedom and choice will be risk and complexity. This is the place in which we should debate that, as we discuss the principles behind the Bill. We will also probe the matter further in Committee. The Financial Conduct Authority has observed that firms might devise

“complex, opaque and overpriced products”

that do not represent good value for customers. It is incumbent on us to understand that risk, and to ask questions about how such products would be regulated. Furthermore, the marketing of those new products might not always clearly articulate the risks involved.