(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
“( ) Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a person may opt to have a year treated as a qualifying year if by aggregating income from two or more jobs, that person’s earnings are equal to or greater than the lower earnings level for that year.”
Commons Disagreement and Reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 1 for the following Reason—
1A: Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is the one outstanding issue of a Pensions Bill that will radically reform the state pension system, providing a clear, simple platform on which to save for retirement. This Government want people to build up a full entitlement to this new pension, to give them this platform and then to take them above the level of the basic means test. This is why we have a comprehensive and recently reformed crediting system, which covers those looking after children or elderly relatives and people claiming JSA and ESA. Those in universal credit households will also get credits so that, in time, at least a further 800,000 people will gain a qualifying year. It is why during this Parliament we have introduced a credit for adult carers of children, commonly known as the “grandparents’ credit” and, with thanks to Members of this House, we will now be extending credits for partners of members of the Armed Forces on overseas postings to have retrospective effect.
On Report, we had a good debate about whether the national insurance system is failing those who have more than one job and are earning enough to pay national insurance or be credited into the system but do not reach the required thresholds in any one of their employments. This is an area that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has been campaigning on for some time and I pay tribute to her tenacity. It is clear to us that people are in that situation. Our own evidence suggests that around 50,000 people in 2012-13 had more than one job with combined earnings above the lower earnings limit and yet did not get a qualifying year for the purposes of the state pension. What is less clear is whether that will affect their state pension. The system allows people to have gaps in their records over their working lives. For those with a typical working life, they might be able to have gaps for 10 or 15 years and still get the 35 qualifying years that they need for a full single-tier state pension. For those in this situation for a short period of time, there is no reason to expect an impact on their pension.
What we heard from the noble Baroness on Report was that having more than one job was not a temporary situation for some people and that there is evidence to suggest that this is a growing phenomenon. While the current evidence that we have does not suggest a growing problem, the Minister for Pensions and I would like to acquire a greater understanding of the scale of the issue, who is being affected and at what point in their lifetime. For this reason, as the Minister for Pensions announced last month, the department will be updating and doing more detailed analysis and will be working with stakeholders to build its evidence base in this area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, herself said, the implications for individuals’ state pension entitlement have perhaps been neglected in recent debates about the labour market, so I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to shine some light on this area.
The department will update its analysis based on the latest data and will look to identify the characteristics of those affected. We are keen to bring other interested parties on board. As well collating the relevant findings from think tanks and research organisations, we will be convening a forum to discuss this evidence base before the Summer Recess. We are hoping that, among others, the Pensions Policy Institute, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Resolution Foundation and, of course, the noble Baroness, will attend this forum. I am pleased to say that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has agreed in principle to chair it. This event will allow the department and interested parties to consider the available evidence in order to answer three main questions. First, what is the current evidence base? Secondly, is the number of individuals in this situation likely to change? Thirdly, what is the impact on their state pension outcomes? I believe that this work will get us to a place where we will understand whether there is a problem and, if there is an issue, will provide some pointers as to how it might be addressed.
I turn briefly to why this Government do not believe that we should insert a power in the Bill ahead of the conclusion of this work. Put simply, we already have the powers we need. The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act contains broad powers to create new national insurance credits and to adjust the way voluntary national insurance contributions work—two possible options suggested by the noble Baroness on Report. There could, of course, be other options that we do not have the powers for, but I am sure noble Lords will understand that we cannot simply give ourselves a sweeping power to make regulations both to introduce any possible solution and to amend existing primary legislation where necessary.
I hope that I have made my position clear. I again thank the noble Baroness for her work on this issue. She has highlighted the need for us to dig deeper and that is what we shall do. Building the evidence base will give us a clearer sense of whether people working in multiple jobs are at risk of losing out on state pension and who these people are. I look forward to reporting back to the House on the results of this work and, in the mean time, I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister and his honourable friend in the other place, Steve Webb, for briefing me on their position before our amendment went to the Commons to be overturned. I appreciated their courtesy then in the same way that I appreciate the Minister’s generosity today. I also appreciate above all—that is what matters—their recognition—sort of, at any rate—that this issue is not going to go away. Obviously, my regret is that the Minister did not feel able to come back with an appropriate amendment in lieu, but of course I welcome the detailed review announced today.
What was the point of the original amendment? The state pension has been a national insurance pension built on men’s full-time working lives, where wives and widows largely derived their state pension entitlement through him. However, as family structures have changed, as motherhood has become divorced from marriage, as disabled people have lived into retirement, as mothers have joined the labour force, as grandparents in their 50s have become carers of even frailer parents in their 80s, so governments over the years have credited those in unwaged work—mainly women—into the NI system. Noble Lords—many of whom are here today—have helped enormously to make all that possible.
However, though the state pension has responded flexibly and appropriately to the changes in our demography, in my view it has failed to respond flexibly and appropriately to similarly profound changes in the labour market, such as the growth in self-employment, part-time work, agency work, zero-hours contracts, the 24/7 working world and the fact that nearly 40% of all people in the labour force no longer work a standard labour contract, on which our pensions are still largely based.
We have, alongside the US, probably the most flexible and deregulated labour market in the developed world—for good and for bad—but our pension structures have not caught up. Therefore, along with insecurity, uncertain income and hours, issues of sick pay, holiday pay and childcare needs—the dark side of the flexible labour market—almost always overlooked is, for some, the lack of pension entitlement. We who benefit from the labour market, including me, should ensure that appropriate safety nets are in place.
After all, if you are unemployed and on JSA, you are in the national insurance system and build a pension; if you are on disability benefit, you are in NI; if you are a carer of children or frail elderly relatives, you are in NI; if in future you are self-employed, you are in NI; and if you work 20 hours a week on the minimum wage in a single job, you are in NI and you build a pension. That is good. However, if you are in a non-standard work pattern, working 30 hours a week on the minimum wage but with two 15-hour jobs or three 10-hour jobs, you are excluded from national insurance.
If your earnings fluctuate across the year, when you can be sent home 10 minutes before your shift starts, you may not even know whether at year’s end you have crossed the LEL line and built your pension. If you strive to come off JSA, as we would wish, by patching together mini-jobs, which may be all that is available and with all the effort, travel costs and risk that that requires, you may get punished for it by losing the state pension that you would have got by simply staying on JSA. That is perverse. We are punishing people for doing what is right—those who are taking risks to do what is right—and public policy which does that must be wrong.
A woman may be cleaning offices early in the morning and late at night, as well as other offices late in the day, and doing domestic cleaning, travelling for hours by bus and building her working week. She may be working at a department store late on a Thursday evening and all day Saturday, alongside working in a laundrette during the week. A man may be doing three hours each weekday in a sandwich shop alongside some delivery work or part-time security work in Tesco. Multiple jobs are hard work.
Steve Webb in the other place was puzzled as to why such workers do not find jobs with longer hours. Disappointingly, he cannot have read the research. Students and pensioners may want those limited hours, but nearly half the workers in the MASS1 survey wanted longer hours and could not get them, sometimes because, I am afraid, employers want to dodge paying NI. Such workers need a second or even a third mini-job to make ends meet. They work 30 or 40 hours a week, fractured between several jobs. They may earn £11,000 or £12,000 a year and they may pay tax. We are quite happy to amalgamate their earnings for tax, through which they contribute to other people’s pensions, but we refuse to allow them to do it for NI, which would build their own state pension. This is so wrong.
We do not know precisely how many people are in this situation but my own best estimate—and it is only that—is that the figure is some 250,000 and growing. The obstacles over the decade in which we have been arguing this have basically been two. First, it is fiddly getting fractions of employers’ contributions from different companies. Secondly, there is an assumption, which I know the Minister does not share and which I am sure his right honourable friend does not share, that those with a couple of part-time jobs are mostly older women who can rely on their husbands and work for pin money; for them, the situation is short term and they do not matter. Well, they do. The changing world of work has made this a real issue.
Real-time information allows HMRC to track them—that is now straightforward. The new state pension—and I am so pleased about this—brings 4 million self-employed people into national insurance without an employer’s contribution, so that is not necessary. In addition, there are in any case millions of unemployed people on benefits or earning above the LEL of £5,700 but below the point at which they pay NI at £7,500 and who are credited into NI for free, yet because someone is earning £12,000 from three £4,000 jobs, they are outlawed and get nothing. We should be supporting their work effort and applauding their effort to patch together a wage under difficult circumstances, not undermining it.
Neither is this some short-lived rite of passage. What little survey material we have suggests that 40% of people in zero-hour contracts have been with the same employer for five years or more and 20% for 10 years or more, to the detriment perhaps of their future state pension. We know, for example, that many low-paid people cycle between employment, self-employment and no employment, but we do not fail to support the self-employed because their self-employment may last only a few years and theoretically there is time to build a full NI record. These non-standard work patterns are not some temporary phenomena but a fundamental shift in the nature of employment where demand for labour and services will ebb and flow by the hour, the day, the week, the season. With a Pensions Bill before us, we could do something about it and bring the state pension into line with this new working world.
The House agreed. On 24 February it supported this entirely permissive amendment. The Minister in the Commons who overturned it made three points: it was technically defective; we did not know the real stats—the Minister used that argument today—and universal credit would sort it; and, therefore, it was premature to act. I agree with the Minister on most of that, but not on the last point. The amendment is probably technically deficient. I have had many technically deficient amendments run against me. If the House and Government agreed, it was my responsibility, with consent, to bring back an amendment that in the words of the honourable Steve Webb could “normally be tidied up”. He simply chose not to.
Secondly, I agree with the Minister that we do not know what the facts or stats are. We have no definitive figures. Research on the topic is limited and they use different data bases. Of the primary pieces of research, one samples employers and one samples employees. One looks at only zero-hour contracts and the other at short-term contracts as well. They have different wage bands and different hour bands. The reason is that they were researching the work conditions behind zero-hour contracts, not the question of pension entitlement to NI. I am afraid that those questions did not arise. We can only make informed assumptions about the number of those at risk who will be covered by UC.
I am delighted that today the Minister has committed himself to decent research on the subject over and beyond what we already know. A full review of the existing literature, as I am sure the Minister knows, will take him precisely 10 hours. What I do not know, and what the chartered institute or MASS1 could tell us, is whether their data can be cut in different ways to answer some of the unknowns or whether we need fresh survey material that focuses specifically on the NI and pension entitlement issue. If we do need fresh survey research material, is the Minister in a position today to give us the guarantee that he will use departmental resources to find out what else we may need to know?
However, none of these considerations need stop the Government following through on the amendment, in my view. Why? How? We could, for example, treat such workers in pension terms like the 4 million self-employed, coming into NI for the first time, leaving open the status of their employment. Or we could encourage voluntary NICs, but the employee will not know until retirement how many years she has missed, and by then voluntary NIC rules do not allow her to make good the missing years from 25 years earlier. Aren’t we clever? We could treat her like those on JSA, in that by working more than 20 or 30 hours a week, she was indeed meeting work conditionality and was credited in. We could reconsider the LEL—lowering it perhaps, as Steve Webb suggested, to bring in more mini-jobs or, as the IFS has proposed, raising the primary threshold, perhaps to the tax threshold with which it was previously bracketed. That comes at a cost.
We need departmental resources to determine how best to proceed, but it is not rocket science. We could do it quite easily with political will. We need to do it because the new state pension—this is also different—is financially more generous but it has scrapped the married woman’s pension and scrapped the widow’s derived pension. The widow or the wife can have absolutely nothing. Universal credit is a household test and the husband’s income may float them off it. If she were doing too many jobs that took her above the LEL, and was not allowed to bring them together, she could fail to get a pension through her own work; she could fail to get a pension through her husband’s national insurance; and she could fail to get a pension through UC. Unless we tackle this issue she will get no pension at all for those years in which she ran together many jobs. No state pension at all—none.
Let me make one final point. Of course I welcome the review and I am delighted that the Minister has spelled it out today. However, we are perhaps making heavy weather of what might be quite a modest change in crediting rules. Yet—I hope the House will forgive me for saying this—we have just had a Budget where, as far as I know, without any research, consultation, briefing or preparation but simply by fiat of the Chancellor, we have turned the annuity market upside down, affecting up to 400,000 people a year, with unknown, possibly disastrous, effects on retirement income, housing and social care.
Why are we bothered? Why is this House bothered with the private sector parts of the Pensions Bill? I really do not know. We have all, including the Minister, wasted countless hours on it. I do not in the least accuse him of bad faith on this because he may well have been in the position—I do not know—that the rest of us were in. However, we have certainly had enough departmental time to have this issue sorted. None the less, I welcome the review and the Minister’s generosity in outlining it today.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I say to my noble friend that the noble Baroness makes a devastating case in favour of those people who take advantage of flexible labour markets. All my political life we have been trying to create more flexibility in the labour market and more opportunities for women. As at an earlier stage, the noble Baroness, with her characteristic incisive, forensic approach and her considerable knowledge of social security and other matters, this afternoon has made an overwhelming case. It all goes to show that the Whips’ advice of never listen to the arguments before you vote is well founded for those people who only want to win the votes.
The noble Baroness has won the argument on this and so I have a question for my noble friend. He is going to carry out a survey: what are the criteria by which he will decide what to do on the basis of that survey? Is this a numbers game? Does it depend on a certain number of people being affected by it? If it does, what is the number? To my mind, if it is one, that is one too many. The Prime Minister constantly talks about supporting strivers and people who do the right thing. In my book, someone who does not sit on benefit but goes out and does the kind of jobs to which the noble Baroness has referred has exactly that character. Such people have considerable difficulty in doing the right thing and yet find themselves penalised when they are at their most vulnerable in old age.
I understand the Government’s position. My noble friend said that the amendments were unnecessary because the Government already have the power to deal with this matter. I have two questions for him: first, what will the criteria be by which they decide whether to do something; and, secondly, what is the timetable for this? Can we have a commitment from my noble friend? If as a result of the survey the noble Baroness is proved right and it is 250,000, is that not a quarter of a million too many? If it is 10,000, is that not too many? What are the criteria?
What is the timescale? My noble friend will carry out his survey and we will have the results by the summer. Can we have an assurance that if he finds there is a problem he will do something this side of Christmas and that he will not use it as a delaying tactic? Certainly when I used to stand at the Dispatch Box there were certain techniques that one could apply when one had run out of arguments and could no longer win the debate. One was to set up a commission and the other was to commission a survey and hope that by the time the survey had been reported the matter would have gone away. One thing we can be sure of is that the noble Baroness will not go away.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)
My Lords, I support the two previous speakers, particularly my noble friend Lady Hollis. This issue was well aired in Committee and at later stages. At the moment it predominantly affects women. I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I am aware that we are not too far away from a general election and that things may change. The work that is to be carried out will obviously be done only after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, so what specific assurances can the Minister give to disabuse me of the notion that in reality this is being kicked into the long grass because it is rather inconvenient?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am slightly confused by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Forsyth because he referred to a survey. When my noble friend the Minister spoke, I could have sworn that he was talking about a review, and there is more than a slight difference between a survey and a review. A review means that you look at the evidence and take action as a result. I noted the words used by my noble friend, that the matter will be addressed. Given that, can we have an assurance that if any review turns up evidence that this is a matter which affects a large number of people, action will be taken to address it? That is the difference between a survey and a review; a review implies action at the end of it.
I also wonder if my noble friend can reassure me that this review will look at the differences in zero-hours contracts, on which an enormous emphasis has been placed. They are seen as being at the heart of the problem. The ONS labour market survey shows that although there has been an increase in the number of people on zero-hours contracts, the number of women in part-time and multiple jobs has not been increasing over time. I think that a distinction needs to be made because the issue is not necessarily about zero-hours contracts, so I would be grateful if my noble friend could reassure us that that is not the emphasis. The emphasis here is on people who have mini-jobs or who fall below the lower earnings limit. They are not able to get the stamp which would qualify them for building up their pension. Given the number of years that the new pension requires—35 years—can my noble friend also say whether the review will take into account a lifetime of work? That is because if you have earned up to the limit or you have got your 35 years, whatever you do on top of that is not going to make a difference to the £149 or so that we are expecting to be the figure for the new state pension for a single person. That will have effects elsewhere on people’s personal economic trail.
I welcome the announcement made today by my noble friend, and I hope that he can reassure the House that these caveats will be taken into account when taking action.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, when I heard mention of the Minister in the other place, two words came to mind: “kitchen” and “sink”. Indeed, the Minister claimed that there were 17 logical flaws in the case the Lords had put forward. However, it was not clear to me which were the objections of substance and which were the makeweight arguments. Of course, the problem is that there are not that many people in this category. Is it a problem that is going to be solved by universal credit, or is it not a problem because people have time to catch up later on? That is a very poor argument because you never know whether you are going to have time to catch up. Is it a problem of information? Is it a problem that in the fixing of it would create other problems? Lastly, there were arguments about drafting. For good measure some bad statistics were thrown in that referred to average numbers of people on average hours and average earnings, when you really need to look at the median if you are trying to calculate the numbers.
However, I welcome the statement from the Minister today because he appears to have conceded that there is an issue to address. As a matter of principle, I think it is not acceptable that someone earning £120 in one job can get credit, while someone earning two times £60 a week cannot. We have a duty to address this issue if it turns out that significant numbers of people fall into that category. I also welcome the review, and like other noble Lords I hope that it will be addressed with some urgency.
I think that one further assurance is needed. If it turns out that the Government do not have the powers, they should be introduced quickly. Opportunities to do that in social security legislation seem to arise every few weeks, so I do not think that it will be a problem.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, as the opposition winder, I have rarely felt more redundant. If the Minister had seen the nodding of heads going on from all Benches, including those behind him, he might begin to think that accepting the amendment would have been the easier path in the long run. I was quite disappointed to find the amendment returning to this House, as it had a number of things to commend it. First, it identified a problem which clearly needed attention. If there were any doubts about that, my noble friend Lady Hollis has cleared them up today. The case is compelling.
When we debated this amendment on Report, Ministers seemed sceptical that there was a problem at all. However, since then, we have had some new figures from the Office for National Statistics, specifically on the prevalence of zero-hours contracts. The figure that was used on Report was 183,000 in 2010. The new ONS report, based on the Labour Force Survey, shows that there are 583,000 people currently employed on zero-hours contracts. I fully accept that some of those people will of course be earning enough to bring them into the system, but the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, about the use of average figures when this was debated in the other place is very well made. If some people are earning very high salaries, for example as IT contractors, a mean figure is never going to be any help at all in working out the impact of this.
In addition to those on zero-hours contracts, there is the broader issue of those doing more than one mini-job, as described so effectively by my noble friend. Concern has been expressed across the House throughout the passage of the Bill about the asymmetry of the system crediting-in those who earn all that money in one job or those who are unemployed, including those who are unpaid carers, but not crediting-in people working hard in more than one job.
The other thing the amendment had to commend it was that it was wholly permissive: it simply enabled the Government to take action if and when they were ready but mandated them to do nothing. The amendment also had no financial implications, and I was surprised as well as disappointed to see financial privilege being cited for such a permissive amendment. Frankly, I really find that incomprehensible.
However, the Government still seemed unpersuaded. Ministers, both in the other place and here, have posted a series of objections to the amendment. Some are minor, such as complaints about the drafting, but, as my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out, those could have been easily resolved by the Government bringing forward their own differently worded amendment at Third Reading, so we have to assume the problem is bigger than that. When we sweep away some of the flannel in the debate in the other place, the options are these: they do not believe there is a problem; they believe there is a problem but do not know the scale; there is a problem but universal credit will solve it; or there is a problem but the Government do not know how best they want to address it.
Both in debates in another place and, indeed, today, we have had smatterings of all of those. The Government seem unpersuaded that there is a problem, or at least not one of a size to merit intervention to tackle it. They want to do research—lots of really thorough and careful research. I am a great believer in research but want to understand what it is the Government think they could learn that would make a difference to the decisions they would take. There are many noble Lords in this House who may not be biologists but who, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Dean, can spot long grass when they see it. Frankly, I can smell it from here.
As for the universal credit defence, my noble friend Lady Hollis has taken that apart at different stages of the Bill. The Minister said again today that 800,000 people will be credited-in as a result of universal credit. The new pension system is due to come in in under two years, and I am personally not willing to bet the house that UC will be fully rolled out by the time it does. Even if it is, that leaves out all kinds of people. Single people on even very modest incomes will not be covered by universal credit. A married woman affected by this problem could find that her husband’s earnings float her off universal credit but she can no longer, as a result of this Bill, get a pension based on his contributions, so she is cut out both ways.
Finally, it may be that the Government are eventually persuaded that there is a problem, but they want to address it in a different way from that favoured by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Of course, the amendment allowed them to do that. In addition, the Government could have brought back their own amendment, had that been what they wanted to do. But this must leave the House nervous that the Government are not really supportive in the way that they sound at the outset, however warm their words of welcome. The Minister has a job to do to reassure people on all sides of the House.
First, do the Government accept that there is a problem that needs addressing? Secondly—and this was the killer question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—are the Government satisfied for any worker to be excluded from the new single-tier pension just because his or her hours are spread across more than one employer? Is it a question of principle? Is it a question of scale? If so, what is the magic number? Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, if the Government do accept that there is a problem, will the Minister confirm that they are committed to taking action to address it? The only outstanding question, therefore, is how best to do that.
Finally, many noble Lords asked about the timescale and the process. If the forum is to be held by the summer, when can the House expect a report back, and what form will the action take? My noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out that even though this Bill has not yet completed its passage through the House, the entire pension system is to be revolutionised still further. If that means further primary legislation, do the Government intend to take advantage of that legislation to enact whatever decisions they take as a result of the review? If not, what other mechanisms will they choose and how will the Minister report back to the House?
Lord Freud
My Lords, again, I record my thanks to those who have contributed to the discussions on this issue, in particular, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who has shone a spotlight on this group of people.
I will pick up a few of the points that have been made today. The first was raised by my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and concerned zero hours. There has been quite a lot of conflation between this issue and zero hours, which is probably, on balance, unhelpful, because people on zero-hours contracts do not necessarily have more than one job. Indeed, they can be working quite a large number of hours. I think the title “zero-hour contracts” does not do justice to what should perhaps be called “flexible-hour contracts”. The mean in the Labour Force Survey of people on these contracts is 21 hours and the median—I know that people like both—is 18. When you look at the average usual hours, it is a higher figure: 25 mean and 23 median. There is quite high satisfaction with that.
On the point about the labour market, the percentage of women in two or more jobs has hardly changed in the past 10 years. It is approximately 10%. The number of women who work part-time because they cannot find a full-time job is currently standing at 13.3%.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked about the forum. We do not want to prejudge the outcome of the forum. I am sorry; the question was about the commitment to further research, if necessary. We will consider further research if it can fill the gaps in the evidence and we need it to aid our policy. If we need to take more evidence, we will need to take the time to do it properly. The rough timing is that from the initiation of qualitative research to carry out and publish takes roughly six months.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked about timing. We will hold the forum in July, we hope. Our analysis of existing data should be published roughly at that time, before the break. My noble friend also asked what the criteria are. The criteria are that we want to ensure that people with multiple short-hour jobs are not disadvantaged, and we would need to consider the most appropriate and proportionate means to ensure this. We need to ensure that any remedy does not place an undue burden on the business.
Perhaps I may correct something I said earlier. When I said “10% of women in two jobs”, I should have said “5%”. I apologise for that.
On the criteria and on the question of whether we would have the answers this side of Christmas—the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was rather rude in referring to “long grass”—we are taking this issue seriously. We are making an enormous number of changes in this department. We are rebuilding the welfare system and the pensions system. We want to make sure that we incentivise flexible work. I do not think that your Lordships see before you a Minister or a department shy of taking action where it is required. I think that that is the best assurance about lawnmowers that I can give.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I shall read my noble friend’s words carefully in Hansard, but they sounded to me like a commitment that he would address this problem one way or the other. Is that what he was saying?
Lord Freud
I was saying that we now have a base on which to look at this problem, see what it is and, on that basis, decide how to deal with it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
When my noble friend has decided how to deal with it, will he then deal with it?
Lord Freud
I would be pretty surprised if, when one had reached a decision on how to deal with something, one did not get on with trying to deal with it.
On the timetable, we have the power to introduce credits anyway—that is a point that I have already made—but it would take time, working with HMRC, to get it right. We need to work through the impacts to ensure that there are not any significant burdens on business. However, I give the assurance that this is not a numbers game and we will look at the most appropriate action.
I think that I have dealt with most of the issues raised. I am glad that we can conclude the scrutiny of this important Bill with another example of how, through well informed discussions, this House can move a debate forward, in this case by ensuring that we have a robust evidence base on which to consider the issue of multi-jobs. On that basis, I ask that the House do not insist on Amendment 1.