Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, after that forensic double examination, I cannot help reflecting that I am glad I am not responding. I support the amendment because it raises a significant issue. I also want to add the point that here are a Government who say that the best thing we can do is to encourage people to get into work, and I think that that is right; people who are locked out of the employment market, for whatever reason, face a real challenge. So these are people who are determined to work, which is what the Government want them to do, and determined to make a contribution not only for themselves but for their families, yet they are being penalised. The case being made is a valid one. We recognise by the nature of the contributions that this is quite a complex issue, so I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Newby (LD)
Such expectation, my Lords. I know that the question of NI eligibility raised by the amendment is one about which the noble Baroness is deeply concerned and has been for some time; this is not the first time the issue has been raised in your Lordships’ House by her and others. I hope that I can reassure them that the Government are already actively considering this matter, and I look forward to working further with her on this outside the debates on the Bill, to see how best it can be addressed. We are in no sense claiming that this is not a valid issue.
I know that officials from a range of government departments have already been in discussion with interested parties, including the noble Baroness, over recent months, and this work has been considering the evidence base around the matter of national insurance eligibility. As the noble Baroness is aware, it remains a work in progress and we believe that we do not yet know enough to make a sensible legislative change at this point. There are many complex issues regarding the scale of the problem and how to address it.
The noble Baroness raised the figure of 200,000 people who might be affected by the problems that she has so graphically described, but these figures do not align with DWP analysis, which suggests that 50,000 individuals are affected and that the group is disproportionately made up of under-25 year-olds. The noble Baroness laughs but the DWP is not coming up with a low figure for the sake of frustrating her; that is its best view. That is why we need to do more work on the issue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry—I did not understand that sentence at all. Would the noble Lord care to explain to me why somebody on £60 a week would be in the contributory system, while somebody on £110 would not?
Lord Newby
I am drawing the distinction between somebody who is on a zero-hours contract at that level of income and somebody on a higher level of income, on a straightforward contract, which might pay £5,000 a year. The noble Baroness’s amendment deals solely with people on zero-hours contracts—that is what the clauses deal with.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
No—that is not a correct statement. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that this is a problem. My amendment says:
“Such workers shall be eligible for inclusion within the national insurance system”,
and that does not exclude others. I would obviously expect, as the noble Lord absolutely rightly recognises, that that would apply to people on ZHCs. However, as I made very clear in my opening remarks, this affects all those on short-hour or part-time contracts, where in any one job they are not over £5,700, but could by aggregation or in this way, by lowering the LEL, come within the NI system. If we believe in encouraging people into work, we should do this.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I was not suggesting that the amendment would exclude the possibility of further provisions being made for people who are not on zero-hours contracts. However, the amendment would amend a clause that deals specifically with zero-hours contracts—that is what the Bill deals with. It is not dealing with people who are on straightforward contracts for, say, five hours a week. That is the point I am making, that this is partial. I am not saying that that means it is worthless; I am simply saying that it is a partial solution, even if the Government were to accept it.
I reiterate what both noble Baronesses have said, that individuals with earnings below the lower earnings limit, whether on zero-hours contracts or not, are not without some protections already. At the highest level, individuals have to reach the lower earnings limit in only 30 years of a 49-year working life to qualify for a full state pension. Those who reach state pension age from 6 April 2016 will require an additional five years. That means that the individual can fall below this limit for a significant number of years—up to 14—and not be penalised in retirement.
Of course, there are also the other protections, which both noble Baronesses have referred to. Not only income that is above the lower earnings limit counts towards eligibility for a full state pension. Many national insurance credits also count towards that entitlement. For instance, NI contributions can be credited where a person is unable to work full-time due to ill health or because of caring responsibilities. These can be awarded to those receiving certain benefits, such as child benefit or working tax credits, to help build entitlement to a state pension. While we cannot be certain, it is highly likely that many individuals whom the noble Baroness is seeking to benefit are getting national insurance credits during those years in their working life where their earnings fall below the lower earnings limit.
I know that the noble Baroness is keen to make changes as soon as possible, but more work is clearly needed to understand the full extent of the issue. In any event, as I have said, this amendment, which deals only with zero-hours contracts, does not and would not resolve the issue entirely in the way that the noble Baroness wishes. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to continue working closely with the DWP and HMRC on this matter so that they can have the benefit of her very considerable experience and we will eventually reach a satisfactory solution. However, I submit that the way we should do that is not through this Bill and this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I thank my noble friend Lord Young, and especially my noble friend Lady Drake for her powerful speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made three points in reply to which I need to respond. The first was that work was in hand on the working party chaired by the IFS—which, as I said, his right honourable friend Steve Webb set up—on how best the problem should be addressed. Not so. We were told explicitly that all that we could do was collect the data on how many people might be affected, not come up with any policy recommendations. I noticed that when I suggested half a dozen, they were not included in the minutes.
I would be delighted to have the wider remit that the Minister suggested, because that would indeed allow us to take the issue forward. Instead, it has hung around his second point, which is the number coming from DWP of 50,000 as opposed to my figure of 200,000. I am not sure about the propriety of my citing this information in the Moses Room, but if he checks the minutes and the additional information based on research of P14s from HMRC and his department, he will probably find that it is estimated that 130,000 people will be above the current LEL in any one pay period, which could be a week or a month, but over the course of the year will be below LEL, so they are in addition to the 50,000. In addition to that, it was suggested to the working party that about 30,000 or more, possibly far more, are untouched or uncaught because they work for very small employers—the newsagent’s shop, and so on—and are not within the PAYE system. Put those figures together and you get to more than 200,000, my original figure of some two months ago.
The Minister’s third point was that the amendment was very partial and that there was a wider problem with part-time workers more generally. I absolutely agree; he is right. I will be delighted if, as a result, I have persuaded him that the Government need to come back on Report with a comprehensive amendment, a freestanding clause which will address the issue more widely. I invite him to do so, because that is what he has been suggesting and would be consistent with his position in his reply.
At the core—okay, we are arguing between ourselves —is that it cannot be right, first, that someone who is not employed comes into the national insurance system but someone who may be working 30 hours a week cannot do so. Secondly, it cannot be right that when we have a flexible labour market—we have all agreed that a flexible labour market in a 24/7 economy is necessary—all the risks, including the risk of losing a sizeable chunk of your state pension, should fall on the shoulders of the worker, usually a middle-aged woman. That cannot be right. I regard it as immoral. If we want a flexible labour market, and most of us accept that there is a need for it in places, we should ensure that the national insurance system supports those people to do what the rest of us want, wearing our hats as consumers. If we do not, I think that we are behaving immorally. I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister would agree.
I am very happy to continue to discuss numbers on the working party. I am very happy that the Minister will recommend to his right honourable friend that we enlarge the terms of reference of that committee and therefore come up with policy recommendations, and I would be very happy if the Minister were minded to produce some of those recommendations on Report as a government amendment. I would then be very content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, Clauses 149 to 151 give Her Majesty’s Treasury powers to make UK-wide regulations with regard to public sector exit payments. Amendments 68A to 68N and 101A will provide Scottish Ministers with equivalent powers to make regulations to recover exit payments made by relevant bodies in Scotland. They do not enable Scottish Ministers to make regulations affecting payments made elsewhere in the UK. I can confirm that that the Scottish Government have seen these amendments in draft and are content with them. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
“Power to make regulations to be exercisable by the Treasury or Scottish Ministers
(1) The power to make regulations under section 149(1) is exercisable—
(a) by the Scottish Ministers in relation to payments made by a relevant Scottish authority;(b) by the Treasury in relation to any other payments,(but this subsection is subject to subsection (2)).(2) Where the relevant Scottish authority is the Scottish Administration the power to make regulations under section 149(1) is exercisable by the Treasury (instead of the Scottish Ministers) in relation to payments made to—
(a) the holders of offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices (read in accordance with section 126(8) of the Scotland Act 1998), and(b) the members of the staff of the Scottish Administration (read in accordance with section 126(7)(b) of that Act).(3) In this section “relevant Scottish authority” means an authority which wholly or mainly exercises functions which would be within devolved competence (within the meaning of section 54 of the Scotland Act 1998).
(4) Regulations under section 149(1)—
(a) if made by the Treasury, are subject to negative resolution procedure;(b) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the negative procedure.”
Lord Newby