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

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496