MPs slam ‘nonsensical' ISA that could affect Universal Credit
The Treasury Committee warned Universal Credit recipients may be disproportionately affected by the account
Launched in 2017, Lifetime ISAs offer a significant incentive for savers aged 18 to 40 by providing a 25% bonus annually, but they can only use the funds for a first home or retirement, with a 25% charge for other withdrawals. MPs have suggested that the complexity of the account might be leading to poor financial choices, prompting the Treasury Committee to call for reforms or at least a warning for certain savers.
One particular issue highlighted by the report is the potential penalty for benefit recipients since unlike other pension products, Lifetime ISAs are counted when assessing Universal Credit eligibility. This could mean savers who need help at any point in the future might not be eligible for it and also won't be able to access their funds because of the w ithdrawal criteria.
According to PA, the Committee's report stressed: "If the Government is unwilling to equalise the treatment of the Lifetime ISA with other Government-subsidised retirement savings products in universal credit assessments, Lifetime ISA products must include warnings that the Lifetime Isa is an inferior product for anyone who might one day be in receipt of Universal Credit.
"Such warnings would guard against savers being sold products that are not in their best financial interests, which might well constitute mis-selling."
The report also criticised the withdrawal charge, especially since it does not only reclaim the 25% government bonus but also deducts an additional 6.25% from a person's original savings. "Several witnesses described that loss of 6.25% as a 'withdrawal penalty'," it remarked.
In the financial year 2023/2024, there were 1.3 million open Lifetime ISA accounts with 99,650 unauthorised withdrawals incurring this charge. In stark contrast, a mere 56,900 Lifetime ISA holders managed to utilise their savings for purchasing their first home, and no eligible account holder has reached pensionable age yet.
The committee suggested these figures may demonstrate that Lifetime ISAs fall short of their purpose. They projected that the annual bonuses are set to cost the Treasury around £3 billion over the forthcoming five years.
Additionally, the committee highlighted another hiccup: savers can only use their funds towards a first home purchase if the property costs no more than £450,000, a cap increasingly difficult to meet due to soaring house prices. Nonetheless, the report cautioned that many lose out on their savings due to "lack of understanding", which could unfairly prevent prospective home buyers from stepping onto the property ladder.
Dame Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Treasury Committee, stated: "The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime Isa, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age. The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals."
She added: "We know that the Government is looking at Isa reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it. We are still awaiting further data that may shed some light on who exactly the product is helping."
She concluded by saying: "What we already know, though, is that the Lifetime Isa needs to be reformed before it can genuinely be described as a market-leading savings product for both prospective home buyers and those who want to start saving for their retirement at a young age."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer battles DWP disability benefit cuts revolt despite U-turn
Keir Starmer offered major concessions on welfare reforms to avoid a Commons defeat - but the Government's own analysis suggests 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty The Government is battling to quell a Labour revolt over disability benefit cuts that risk pushing 150,000 people into poverty. Keir Starmer offered massive concessions on controversial welfare reforms last week to avoid a defeat in the Commons on Tuesday. But Labour MPs lined up to express fury over the plans, which the Government's own analysis admitted could push tens of thousands of people into hardship. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall insisted Labour was "doing the fair thing and the right thing" to help people back into work. She said: "Our plans are rooted in fairness for those who need support and for taxpayers. They are about ensuring the welfare state survives." While some of the 126 Labour rebels are expected to vote with the Government, around 50 MPs could still oppose the bill in the biggest revolt of Mr Starmer's premiership. Rebel Labour MP Debbie Abrahams told The Mirror: "The Government's concessions to protect existing PIP claimants are significant, and many of us feel that we're nearly there. "However there are still real concerns about the PIP review, its timing and how the commitment for this to be co-produced with disabled people's organisations is genuine when the outcome of this - that 4 points still has to be achieved for each daily living activity - has been predetermined. Ms Abrahams, who chairs the Commons Work and Pensions Committee, accused the Government of going back on its word as MPs thought cuts for future Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants would be put on hold until a review has taken place. She added: "We did propose to delay this to November 2026 to better align and not undermine the great work on increasing NHS capacity, employment opportunities for disabled people and employment support." The row comes after an extraordinary climbdown from the Prime Minister last week. The proposals will now mean existing claimants are protected from losing PIP, in a reprieve for an estimated 370,000 people who were due to lose more than £4,000 a year. Instead, tighter eligibility rules for the key disability benefit will only apply to future claimants from November 2026. Existing claimants of the Universal Credit top up will continue to receive £97 per week, while new claimants from April 2026 will see it fall to £50 a week. Details were also set out of a review of PIP assessments led by Minister Sir Stephen Timms, done in partnership with disability groups. But a string of Labour MPs sounded the alarm over plans to publish the findings by next autumn - when the changes are meant to come into effect. Backbencher Derek Twigg asked: "Given the wider review, why are we pushing ahead at this stage?" Ms Kendall confirmed the climbdown will halve the £5billion savings the Government had expected to claw back from the benefits bill by 2030. It means Chancellor Rachel Reeves will have to scramble to make up the shortfall in the Budget in the autumn. Earlier, modelling published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said an additional 150,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty after housing costs by 2029-30. Ms Kendall insisted that changes to PIP and Universal Credit would "ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty". A Downing Street spokesman said the modelling "doesn't reflect the full picture" and was "subject to uncertainty" as it does not take into account extra funding to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. An additional £300million will be put towards this, with spending rising to £1billion by 2029/30. A previous analysis in March - before the U-turn - said the welfare reforms would result in an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, falling into poverty No10 is hoping the concessions will convince enough Labour MPs to back the plans in a crunch vote on Tuesday. But disability groups have warned the changes risk creating a "two-tier" benefits system. Campaigners from 86 charities including Mind, Scope, Trussell and the Child Poverty Action Group urged MPs to vote against the bill. Labour's Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, warned: "I still have serious concerns about these plans. I've met too many Londoners who do work, but through no fault of their own need support from the state, and they're really worried they'll lose that." Charlotte Gill, of the MS Society, said: 'We're appalled that the government are choosing to rush through this reckless and harmful bill. It's outrageous that MPs are being asked to vote for dramatic welfare changes, without having time to properly scrutinise their impact. "By the government's own admission these catastrophic cuts will still push at least 150,000 more people into poverty. MS is a debilitating, exhausting and unpredictable condition which gets worse over time. PIP is a lifeline not a luxury for many people with MS." A No10 spokesman said: "The broken welfare system we inherited is failing people every single day. It traps millions, it tells them the only way to get help is to declare they'll never work again and then abandons them. No help, no opportunity, no dignity and we can't accept that. For too long, meaningful reform to a failing system has been ducked." Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party would vote against the Government's proposals, saying they were "not serious welfare reform".
Glasgow Times
3 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Human rights group loses challenge over jet part exports amid Gaza conflict
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. Defence Secretary John Healey had said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' (PA) They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Demonstrators outside the Royal Courts of Justice, central London during an earlier hearing (PA) Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' Following the ruling, Al-Haq director general Shawan Jabarin said the long-running case had caused a 'significant impact'. He continued: 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start. 'This is what matters, that we continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.' A Government spokesperson said: 'The court has upheld this Government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter. 'This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.'
STV News
3 hours ago
- STV News
UK Labour's welfare U-turn to cost £2.5bn by 2030, Liz Kendall says
The UK Labour Government's welfare U-turn is set to cost £2.5bn by the end of the decade, Liz Kendall told MPs on Monday. The work and pensions secretary laid out the Government's welfare reform concessions to Labour rebels less than 24 hours before a crucial vote. The costs and savings of the Government's revised welfare package will be confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the budget in the autumn. 'Reform is never easy, but it is essential. There is no route to equality or social justice based on greater benefits spending alone,' Kendall told MPs on Monday. 'Our plans are rooted in fairness for those who need support and for taxpayers. They're about ensuring the welfare state survives so there is always a safety net for those who need it, and that lasts for generations to come.' Her statement to MPs confirmed the UK Government's concessions to rebels that were announced last week, which included protecting people who claim personal independence payments (PIP) from new eligibility criteria. It also suggested the revised reforms would save less than half the £4.8bn the Government had expected from its initial proposals. The welfare reforms originally wanted to cut Universal Credit health top-ups for new claims from April 2026. The reforms also vowed to review Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments and 'focus PIP on those with higher needs'. The cuts to Universal Credit would have directly impacted benefit claimants in Scotland, while the other changes would have impacted the amount of money coming to Social Security Scotland for devolved benefits. However, 126 Labour backbenchers signed their names to an amendment to halt the welfare reform legislation in its tracks last week. Among the rebels were nine Scottish Labour MPs. The rebels argued that the plans were rushed and would push vulnerable disabled people into poverty. After originally doubling down on the reforms, Starmer's government was forced to back-track ahead of the crucial vote on Tuesday. Under the concessions, Kendall said PIP claimants would continue to receive the benefits they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of universal credit. In other words, the planned benefit cuts will only hit future claimants. Campaigners have accused the latest proposals of creating a two-tier benefits system, but on Monday, Kendall argued that the UK benefits system 'often protects existing claimants from new rates or rules because lives have been built around that support', making it hard for people to adjust. 'We believe protecting existing claimants while beginning to focus PIP on those with higher needs for new claimants going forward strikes the right and fair balance,' Kendall said. She also vowed that the 'voices of disabled people will be heard at the heart of Government plans' during the wider review of PIP. However, shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, Helen Whately was not impressed. 'This is a Government in chaos,' she said. She slammed the UK Labour Government's open rebellion, as well as its 'unfunded U-turns costing billions'. Whately said Kendall's welfare plans were 'not worth the paper they are written on'. 'What we now have before us is a rushed and chaotic compromise. It is not reform in any sense of the word,' Whately said. 'It achieves no meaningful change of a system we all know is broken.' The reforms will be put to a vote on Tuesday around noon. The House of Commons proceedings will be broadcast from the chamber. STV News is now on WhatsApp Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
