Saving sustainably

We already encourage saving - why not encourage sustainable saving instead?

The post-Budget row over tax relief for charitable giving has obscured the fact that there are many tax reliefs given for profitable activities without any consideration for the public benefit of the activities being effectively subsidised. Around £40bn a year of relief against income or capital gains tax goes to support pension saving, ISAs and protect individual gains from the sale of residential property. In times of austerity shouldn’t we be looking more closely at how this money is used? Could the Government use the policy leverage created by such subsidies to encourage more responsible behaviour in the financial sector that benefits the taxpayer as well as the individual investor?

Britain’s economy before the credit crunch was based on high borrowing to fuel increasing consumption which drove economic growth. As individuals we didn’t save enough for our own financial security, and as a country, we haven’t invested enough in our economic future. To face the long term challenges to our economic prosperity like an ageing population or climate change, we will need a more resilient economy that has far stronger foundations of savings and investment.

So what happens to the money that we combine with the tax subsidy in order to save for the future?

Well, we know that pension funds and institutional investors place much of this in the stock market, but the evidence shows that more and more of this capital is used for high frequency trading rather than long term investing. Andy Haldane of the Bank of England is one high profile regulator who is very concerned with this development. Cash placed in ISAs earns a very low rate of interest and, in as much that these funds bolster bank balance sheets and help fund lending to the economy, we also know that the majority of such lending actually funds property loans and financial speculation. Less than 20 per cent of UK bank lending goes to the productive economy of growing businesses. Finally we know that fees and charges in the investment and banking sectors are notoriously opaque, and competition is far from perfect.

So there is an understandable lack of trust in the finance sector, yet the government has to find a way to convince the public not just to save more, but channel those savings into productive investment. One way to do this is for the government to be more explicit about encouraging savings and investments that apply responsibility criteria and enhance social and environmental well being, as well as financial returns. Moreover, it should be using the existing subsidies to enforce this principle. In an era where all subsidy has to be made to work harder for the public interest, there should be a principle that, in return for tax relief, savers and investors should be able to demonstrate a contribution to the public good. This will not be easy to do, but there is a growing set of voluntary standards and codes of practice which investment organisations can apply to demonstrate they are taking a responsible approach, looking a long term interests, not just short term profits.

In my recent report for Green Alliance, Saving for a sustainable future, I make the case for these principles to be used in public policy and set out a few ways in which it could be applied:

  • Pension tax relief could be made conditional on responsible standards being applied.

  • Banks could only be able to offer tax-free Cash ISA accounts if they could demonstrate responsible and transparent lending practices.

  • Capital gains tax relief for the sale of a residential property could be made conditional on certain energy efficiency improvements being made to the building.

There is political consensus on the need to rebalance our economy and reshape British capitalism in way that better incorporates the values of society. Applying these ideas to existing taxpayer subsidies is a good start.

Green - well, yellow - Britain. Photograph: Getty Images

Chris is an independent environmental policy consultant working on sustainable finance, climate change, energy policy and the green economy. He is a fellow of the Finance Innovation Lab, and an associate of Green Alliance, where he has written on the Green Investment Bank, environmental tax reform and sustainable savings policy.

He was previously head of Climate Change at the Environment Agency and senior research fellow for sustainability at IPPR. Follow @chrisjhewett on twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The UK press’s timid reaction to Brexit is in marked contrast to the satire unleashed on Trump

For the BBC, it seems, to question leaving the EU is to be unpatriotic.

Faced with arguably their biggest political-cum-constitutional ­crisis in half a century, the press on either side of the pond has reacted very differently. Confronting a president who, unlike many predecessors, does not merely covertly dislike the press but rages against its supposed mendacity as a purveyor of “fake news”, the fourth estate in the US has had a pretty successful first 150-odd days of the Trump era. The Washington Post has recovered its Watergate mojo – the bloodhound tenacity that brought down Richard Nixon. The Post’s investigations into links between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s associates and appointees have yielded the scalp of the former security adviser Michael Flynn and led to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from all inquiries into Trump-Russia contacts. Few imagine the story will end there.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has cast off its image as “the grey lady” and come out in sharper colours. Commenting on the James Comey memo in an editorial, the Times raised the possibility that Trump was trying to “obstruct justice”, and called on Washington lawmakers to “uphold the constitution”. Trump’s denunciations of the Times as “failing” have acted as commercial “rocket fuel” for the paper, according to its CEO, Mark Thompson: it gained an “astonishing” 308,000 net digital news subscriptions in the first quarter of 2017.

US-based broadcast organisations such as CNN and ABC, once considered slick or bland, have reacted to Trump’s bullying in forthright style. Political satire is thriving, led by Saturday Night Live, with its devastating impersonations of the president by Alec Baldwin and of his press secretary Sean Spicer by the brilliant Melissa McCarthy.

British press reaction to Brexit – an epic constitutional, political and economic mess-up that probably includes a mind-bogglingly destructive self-ejection from a single market and customs union that took decades to construct, a move pushed through by a far-right faction of the Tory party – has been much more muted. The situation is complicated by the cheerleading for Brexit by most of the British tabloids and the Daily Telegraph. There are stirrings of resistance, but even after an election in which Theresa May spectacularly failed to secure a mandate for her hard Brexit, there is a sense, though the criticism of her has been intense, of the media pussy-footing around a government in disarray – not properly interrogating those who still seem to promise that, in relation to Europe, we can have our cake and eat it.

This is especially the case with the BBC, a state broadcaster that proudly proclaims its independence from the government of the day, protected by the famous “arm’s-length” principle. In the case of Brexit, the BBC invoked its concept of “balance” to give equal airtime and weight to Leavers and Remainers. Fair enough, you might say, but according to the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, it ignored a “near-unanimous view among economists that Brexit would hurt the UK economy in the longer term”.

A similar view of “balance” in the past led the BBC to equate views of ­non-scientific climate contrarians, often linked to the fossil-fuel lobby, with those of leading climate scientists. Many BBC Remainer insiders still feel incensed by what they regard as BBC betrayal over Brexit. Although the referendum of 23 June 2016 said nothing about leaving the single market or the customs union, the Today presenter Justin Webb, in a recent interview with Stuart Rose, put it like this: “Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union – [Leave voters would say] you might as well not be leaving. That fundamental position is a matter of democracy.” For the BBC, it seems, to question Brexit is somehow to be unpatriotic.

You might think that an independent, pro-democratic press would question the attempted use of the arcane and archaic “royal prerogative” to enable the ­bypassing of parliament when it came to triggering Article 50, signalling the UK’s departure from the EU. But when the campaigner Gina Miller’s challenge to the government was upheld by the high court, the three ruling judges were attacked on the front page of the Daily Mail as “enemies of the people”. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he would rather have “newspapers without a government” than “a government without newspapers”. It’s a fair guess he wasn’t thinking of newspapers that would brand the judiciary as “enemies of the people”.

It does seem significant that the United States has a written constitution, encapsulating the separation and balance of powers, and explicitly designed by the Founding Fathers to protect the young republic against tyranny. When James Madison drafted the First Amendment he was clear that freedom of the press should be guaranteed to a much higher degree in the republic than it had been in the colonising power, where for centuries, after all, British monarchs and prime ministers have had no qualms about censoring an unruly media.

By contrast, the United Kingdom remains a hybrid of monarchy and democracy, with no explicit protection of press freedom other than the one provided by the common law. The national impulse to bend the knee before the sovereign, to obey and not question authority, remains strangely powerful in Britain, the land of Henry VIII as well as of George Orwell. That the United Kingdom has slipped 11 places in the World Press Freedom Index in the past four years, down to 40th, has rightly occasioned outrage. Yet, even more awkwardly, the United States is three places lower still, at 43rd. Freedom of the press may not be doing quite as well as we imagine in either country.

Harry Eyres is the author of Horace and Me: Life Lessons from an Ancient Poet (2013)

This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder