Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Flight in his amendments, in broad terms. The Minister will recall that at Second Reading, at col. 570, I raised the question of mutuals and the mutual movement. His noble friend on the Front Bench confirmed that since a great many of them were defined benefit pension schemes, they would be outside the scope of the Bill. However, that does not take everybody out. Since that time I have had discussions with the Universities Superannuation Scheme. It is perhaps a bit of an oddball, but it is deeply concerned about the Bill and its effect on it and its members. Its representatives emphasised to me in our meeting that they were very much behind the intention of the Bill—so it is not a question of some organisation trying to undermine the situation.

They made three particular points on why the Universities Superannuation Scheme should not be subject to the Bill. First, there is,

“the comprehensive regulatory regime already in operation for hybrid schemes, which already provides a well-established, ample level of protection for pension savers”.

Secondly,

“the protection already afforded to USS members with Defined Contribution … benefits both under statute and the scheme rules, whereby the DC benefits are underwritten by the whole fund (DB and DC) which means that the only circumstances where DC benefits could not be fully satisfied would be where the whole scheme fund (assets currently circa £49 billion) was depleted in full”.

Lastly, there are,

“the anticipated costs of compliance”—

a common thread that has been raised by noble friends across the House. The cost of compliance is estimated at,

“in the region of £10.5 million in order to satisfy the financial sustainability requirements over 2 years, plus a further £250,000 per annum for compliance with the requirements of the Bill, which would be funded from the scheme assets”.

I hope very much that the Minister will take these points on board. I do not expect a full and complete answer this afternoon, but I would have thought that schemes such as this—there probably are others that have not been brought to noble Lords’ attention—could be dealt with in secondary legislation. It certainly seems to me that they need to be addressed at some point. All I am seeking this afternoon is a reassurance that my noble friend recognises that there are some schemes out there that should not be covered by the Bill but may need to be covered in some form in the regulations. I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I will make just a few remarks at this stage. My noble friend Lord Flight mentioned the position of the NAME schemes. There are significant problems with the DB sections of those schemes, and a number of employers have written to me who are about to go personally bankrupt because they cannot meet the obligations—and that is setting aside the defined contribution issue that we are talking about today. From the perspective of the Universities Superannuation Scheme and other schemes that may have AVC-only sections to them, it would seem to me that we cannot, given the intentions of the Bill to protect scheme members’ benefits in the event of wind-up, just assume that the money will come from somewhere if there is not any proper provision for it—and currently there is not. It would suggest—my noble friend the Minister might consider this—that there may be a case for extending the Pension Protection Fund itself, which already covers the DB benefits of those schemes, to take care of any residual risk in the AVC section.

Indeed, the capital adequacy mentioned in the Bill will not necessarily achieve the aim that the Pension Protection Fund achieves for defined benefit schemes. In the event of wind-up, with a scheme’s records in disarray, it is not clear that any initial estimate of capital adequacy might be sufficient to cover those costs. I would be grateful for some comment from the Minister on the possibility of some sort of backstop or tail-risk insurance. That could also pick up the AVC schemes that have been mentioned. I understand the points that have been made there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

I ask my noble friend for some reassurance on the issue of defining the whole structure via the word employer. An employer in a single employer scheme may be considered a single employer but they may be attracting money from members who used to work for other employers and do not currently accrue. Therefore, I hope that the intention of the Government for the Bill is that it should apply in the case where there is a single employer but he has attracted money from people who worked for other employers in the past. I recognise that my noble friend says that this may be captured in Clause 39, but I would be grateful for some reassurance on that point.

[Lord Freud]

At the moment, these schemes would not be within the master trusts legislation. I cannot give a full answer now because I am not sure what other protections there may be for people in this situation, but we will have a chance to come back to this issue again and again and I shall make sure that we have a dialogue on this point later, as we consider the Bill in Committee.

This Bill addresses the risks that arise in master trusts. It is important to remember that these risks are specific to this particular type of structure, and it is therefore important that the definition reflects those structures and does not go wider. This ensures that the regulation in the Bill is a proportionate response to the issues arising. I hope that with these explanations and assurances particularly on the process of consultation, noble Lords are reassured, and I ask them not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to support this group of amendments. I have put my name to Amendment 10 but, having heard the speeches so far, I can see no difficulty in supporting the rest of the amendments in the group—and if they come back on Report I would be pleased to sign up to them. The arguments have been strongly made but I will make three specific points about why member engagement is really important.

The first reason is that the risk in contributory pensions is totally with the employee. They are not like direct benefit schemes, where the employer is sharing a lot of the risk; in this type of pension, employees are holding the risk and therefore their engagement and involvement with how their money is being handled is pretty important. If you are introducing a regulatory scheme at this stage, it should be a central point.

My second point is that if you are introducing a regulatory system, you do not want sole reliance on the regulator to make sure that things are running well and that members are satisfied; you want a counterweighting source of evidence and interest from members themselves to support that regulatory role. That is why this should have the attention of the Government in the Bill.

The third reason is that, as we have already heard, organisations such as Legal & General are already doing that. If that is good practice, the Government should take the opportunity of the Bill to encourage it, take it forward and make it more widespread. The concept of an annual meeting, which Legal & General already accepts as a valuable new forum for communication with members, should be examined and included as an option in the legislation. That would be a way to introduce the discipline of finding out what members want and to make it the fiduciary duty of the trustees to understand what members want from their pension investment. For all those reasons, the Government must take this very seriously. I hope that they will look at this more closely so that when we get to Report, there will be no need to retable the amendments.

[Baroness Altmann]

First, I support my noble friend’s remarks about the master trust assurance framework under the previous amendment, because that framework already exists and there are a number of shortcomings in it, so I could not support including it in the Bill’s requirements.

However, in these amendments we are dealing with member engagement—and, indeed, employer engagement, because with a master trust, the employer has in a number of ways handed over responsibility to the trustees. Many of the smallest employers who are currently joining auto-enrolment and using master trust schemes are not fully aware of all the implications and intricacies of pension arrangements. Therefore, it is important to have member engagement and information requirements as part of an authorisation process.

In particular, this might help to address one of the big injustices that your Lordships’ House has not yet addressed. Members who earn less than £11,000 a year who join a pension scheme—in particular, a master trust—which happens to use a net pay arrangement, are charged about 25% more for their pension than they would be if their master trust used a different scheme. I have to mention that that is apart from the NOW: Pensions master trust, which has itself made up the extra money that those low earners are unable to receive from tax relief they are due because of the administration of their scheme.

If there were proper member engagement and information that told both members and employers that this particular complicated administration arrangement denies low earners a significant amount of money, perhaps the operation of the schemes would work better in members’ interests and the employers themselves would be better informed.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I am concerned that there are well-intentioned measures in the Bill designed to ensure that there is capital adequacy in these schemes. One hopes that they will work but how will any regulator know in advance what capital is actually adequate? The circumstances in which wind-up could take away people’s pensions, even if the assets are ring-fenced and protected for the members, are those in which there is no other mechanism for covering the wind-up costs. That is where the members’ pensions would be at risk.

Indeed, we saw this a number of years ago with defined benefit pension schemes, which is precisely why we ended up with the Pension Protection Fund. The Government put in well-meaning legislation that required minimum funding standards for defined benefit schemes which were supposed to ensure that members’ pensions were safe even if the scheme or the employer failed. Unfortunately, the situation with the schemes—due to lack of competent administration in some cases but not all; sometimes due to market movements as well—led to members losing their pensions, and the only real protection that ended up being available was this backstop insurance in the form of the Pension Protection Fund.

Yes, we need capital adequacy. Yes, the Bill is really important. But I would be really grateful if my noble friends the Ministers explained why the Government do not feel this is necessary, or how proper protection for members in extremis can be provided. For example, will NEST guarantee to take over these liabilities? Is there some other plan? I would be grateful for some reassurance from my noble friends.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

Amendment 18 requires the Secretary of State to,

“make provision for a compensation fund or for the funding to be provided by another source as a last resort”,

in circumstances where the scheme has had a triggering event and has insufficient resources to pay the costs referred to in Clause 8(3)(b)—that is, the costs of complying with duties imposed under the Bill during a trigger event, and the costs of continuing to run the scheme for a period of six months to two years—and a prohibition on increasing charges during the trigger period applies.

The amendment speaks to the heart of what the Bill is about: protecting members. Along with a number of other amendments, it seeks to add further protections and, perhaps, test us a little on the extent of the measures the Government have provided for in the Bill as introduced. I welcome both the focus on member protection and the opportunity to explore the specific measures in the Bill which provide the members with security should the scheme decide to close or start to fail. The amendment would mean that if a scheme experienced a triggering event and had insufficient money to pay for the costs associated with the options the scheme may pursue following a triggering event, other funds must be provided. It also goes further to say that it is the Secretary of State who must provide a compensation fund or for the funding to be provided by another source.

In responding, I will touch on a few areas. I will outline, first, the measures which provide that sufficient funds must be held; secondly, some of the costs and complexities that would be introduced into the system should a compensation fund or other funding be required; and, thirdly, the compatibility with the regime provided for in the Bill.

I turn to the measures which provide that sufficient funds will be held. First, the main provisions in the Bill requiring schemes to hold certain funds are in Clause 8, which provides that for the scheme to be authorised it must satisfy the regulator that it has sufficient resources to meet certain costs. This includes the costs of complying with the requirements under the Bill once the scheme experiences a triggering event and those of running the scheme for a period of between six months to two years, in the event of a triggering event occurring. The Government believe that these measures are sufficient and that this is an appropriate regime for the types of funding in question here. Further, members’ savings are protected via the restrictions on using members’ pots to pay for these costs provided at Clause 33. We therefore consider that the amendment is unnecessary.

However, it would be helpful to explore the counterarguments or challenges as to whether this is adequate risk mitigation—in particular, to explore any suggestions that there is still some risk in relation to: the period before the authorisation regime is up and running; the calculation of those funds to ensure they are sufficient at the point of need; the availability of the funds at the point of need; and the funds diminishing over time. Finally, what happens if the lack of these funds leads to the regulator withdrawing authorisation and creating a triggering event? Let me set out how those risks are addressed within the regime.

In respect of the period before the regime is up and running, paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 provides that the scheme funder is liable for these costs. It places this liability on the scheme funder when a triggering event has occurred in an existing scheme and the liability for those costs does not lie elsewhere. The prohibition in relation to increasing members’ charges applies during this period, so members are protected. If the funder should be in financial difficulty, the matter should be pursued via the normal court channels or insolvency processes. It is not the members’ money which is at risk in these scenarios; it is the running costs of the scheme and payment for activities during the triggering event period.

We also know that other schemes may well rescue the failing scheme, as has happened before, to protect the reputation of the industry. This is a different dynamic from what would be the case in non-money purchase schemes, where the debt is about money needed to pay member benefits and where funding obligations to pay for the promised benefits would attach if another entity took over the scheme. The master trust industry can support the movement of members—some trusts are willing to do so—or take over failing master trusts, so government intervention is less warranted where an industry solution may be possible. This might be an appropriate point to deal with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the identification of receiving schemes. They will be on a list kept by the Pensions Regulator, and some industry players may wish to step in and identify themselves.

On whether the funds available to the scheme will be sufficient, regulations will set out matters that the regulator must take into account when deciding whether it is satisfied that those funds are sufficient. We anticipate that these will include matters that will support the establishing of the assets needed to cover these specific costs, such as the business plan, the size of schemes, the costs of contracts and the value of assets, the nature and level of assumptions made in that business plan, the security of the scheme funder and the state of the scheme administration. Also covered will be the range of potential assumptions that may be used in arriving at the figure required.

Regulations may also specify the information that the regulator must take into account and requirements relating to the financing of the scheme or funder, such as requirements relating to assets, capital or liquidity. We anticipate that these will include matters such as how the funds are to be held to ensure that they may be accessed for specific purposes only, so that they are safe in the event of the funder becoming insolvent. In this way the Bill provides that to be authorised, a scheme must hold sufficient funds for those costs and that these funds must be held appropriately.

The supervision part of the regime focuses on ensuring that the funds remain sufficient and are not eroded over time, and that the Pensions Regulator can act swiftly should a drop occur in the funds held. There are measures in the Bill that work together to provide that this requirement to hold funds to cover the costs of the triggering period is an ongoing requirement, and one that the regulator will be able to supervise. Clause 19 states that if the regulator stops being satisfied that an authorised scheme meets the authorisation criteria, it may decide to withdraw the scheme’s authorisation.

Further, alongside the information-gathering powers that the regulator has under the Pensions Act 2004, Clause 14 requires the scheme and funder to submit annual accounts, while Clause 15 gives the regulator the power to require schemes to submit a “supervisory return” and Clause 16 places a requirement on certain persons to report “significant events”. We anticipate that these significant events will include matters in relation to the funds held under Clause 8. Through these means, the Pensions Regulator will have a stream of data in relation to which it can make further inquiries to ensure that it remains satisfied that the criteria continue to be met, and it can take action if that ceases to be so.

If the regulator becomes concerned that the assets are no longer sufficient to satisfy it that the criteria are met, it may issue a warning notice to withdraw authorisation, which is a triggering event, and will have access to the pause power and direction-making powers under the triggering-events part of the Bill. In this way, the Pensions Regulator can act quickly and decisively as soon as any risk arises, to diminish risk and prevent the situation deteriorating any further. On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about which liabilities the receiving scheme will have for debt in the existing scheme, the Bill imposes no liabilities on the receiving scheme for debt in the existing scheme.

This approach caters for a number of different structures under which the master trust schemes have been set up. It ensures that the regulator can make a scheme-specific assessment of the funds that must be held to cover the requirements. It helps ensure that the risk of the scheme not holding these funds, or of the funds being eroded, is minimised.

In addition to the consideration that this risk is already dealt with via the Bill’s provisions, I will turn to a second matter: the costs and complexity that this amendment could introduce into the regime. As soon as compensation is added to the regime—based on the concept that where the funds are insufficient, someone else will step in—an element of moral hazard creeps in, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, acknowledged. Master trusts are businesses set up to provide a service to a number of employers. Many are set up to make a profit; some are not-for-profit, but all are selling or marketing their services to employers and must take responsibility for providing protection to their members. I would also be concerned about the added cost of delivering a compensation fund. Noble Lords have left it for regulations to establish whether this fund or requirement would be a government-funded compensation scheme or a levy-funded compensation scheme, or on whom any additional sourcing requirement would be placed. So this would be a broad regulation-making power.

In terms of what type of compensation may be envisaged, if it was levy-based there would be additional administrative costs to consider, as well as additional costs to the schemes that would presumably need to contribute to it as well as holding funds for their own scheme for a very low risk, as my noble friend Lord Flight pointed out. These would be funds that the scheme could not use for its own risk mitigation. The type of risk we are looking at here does not warrant the introduction of a compensation scheme. Members’ pots or promised benefits are not at risk. Clause 33 provides protection when a trigger event occurs, as it prevents charges being increased or new ones being introduced. It is about the risk of the scheme being unable to meet costs related to paying for activities under the trigger events such as wind-up, bulk transfers, finding a new funder or suchlike. The cost and complexity of a new compensation fund is not warranted.

A third matter is that I am not convinced that the amendment is compatible with the wider regime provided for in the Bill. There would be some significant challenge in ensuring that this provision did not lead to unintended effects: if, for example, the other source of funding was to place a requirement on a specific person to provide the costs as a last resort. The regime has been specifically crafted to ensure that all types and structures of master trusts can comply with the requirement. This has been specifically designed to ensure sufficient flexibility in enabling schemes to comply with the obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have answered my noble friend’s questions. The Government’s view is that the measures during the period before existing schemes are authorised are appropriate and that the schemes, once authorised, will hold the funds. Clause 33 provides that members’ pots are protected by the restrictions imposed on increasing charges. The issue is simply not the same as for defined benefit schemes. The risks and the costs are different.

[Baroness Altmann]

Will my noble friend write to me with some clarification on how costs would be covered? If a scheme fails and records are in disarray, how would the costs of wind-up be covered? I accept that they cannot come out of the members’ pots. If the company running the scheme or the employer has failed, where will the money come from to make sure that members’ current pension funds are transferred over and the costs of administering the transfer, executing the bulk transfer and clarifying the records are met? Currently it would seem that the members’ pots will be in limbo. The money cannot come out of their pots, but there is no one else to pay.

[Lord Freud]

The money cannot come out of their pots, but the Pensions Regulator will be looking to transfer those pots to another master trust. The protection that this amendment and my noble friend are suggesting is almost conditioned by what we watch in the defined benefit market. This is a different situation, where there are protected pots. There may be costs in a catastrophic situation, but they will not fall on members, and it is not the job of government to protect non-members from getting into a mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Flight]

The issue is an administrative one, in that you have people’s pension fund money, and the manager has got into trouble and, let us say, gone into liquidation. What administration would make sure that a new manager takes over and continues to investment-manage those pots of money? There have been suggestions that the Pensions Regulator himself should be empowered, or maybe required, to act as a broker with regard to such arrangements, but that problem has not yet been solved. That, surely, is the practical issue, not people losing money out of their pension pots.

[Baroness Altmann]

The issue that we are dealing with is indeed an administrative issue, but saying members’ pots are protected does not protect members’ pots. In a scheme which has failed and is winding up, and whose administration is in disarray, it will take some time and money to decide and assess how much each member’s pot is actually worth, for example in the cases of a big master trust whose systems fail or of a smaller master trust whose systems simply were never up to scratch. We have 80 or so master trusts out there at the moment and have had no protection regime at all, no capital adequacy rules and no proper assessment of the quality of the trusts. We have so many members’ pension funds growing for them, and there is the possibility that more than one of these schemes will fail and need to wind up. There will be costs associated with assessing what the value of those members’ pots actually is. I do not hear anything at the moment that explains how the costs of administering and sorting out the records of that scheme, so that we know what each member’s pot is worth, are going to be funded. If the Pensions Regulator finds a way to pick up the cost, if NEST has to pick up the cost or if there is some insurance regime for industry-wide assessment of those costs, that is fine, but I just feel that we are assuming that this will be a wind-up of a scheme whose records are fine and it will be shipped off to another scheme, which will want to earn money for those members. That is not the case that is necessarily going to arise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I believe this clause has aroused most concern in the industry, particularly the insurance industry. A number of organisations, particularly life offices, undertake a range of business activities in addition to simply sponsoring a master trust. The clause suggests that the scheme funder or sponsor must set itself up as a separate legal entity and undertake no other activity beyond sponsoring the master trust. Given that the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that funds are available to see through the orderly exit of the scheme’s sponsor, the provisions of Clause 10 as it stands are surely counterintuitive. One wants the sponsor to be as strong financially as possible, but the clause as it stands could well invoke the very thing that the Government are trying to avoid.

More specifically, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the insurance industry typically will have master trusts side by side with group personal pension schemes. As matters now stand, they are regulated by the FCA and PRA, and there would be a considerable duplication of regulation under the arrangements as proposed. I am sure the Government have focused on this, but I certainly feel that Amendments 19 and 20 are appropriate to address the problem that stands.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord Flight. Why do the draftsmen of the Bill think that having a separate legal entity is definitely a good thing? What are the risks that this approach tries to close down? Perhaps if we could understand those risks better, we might be able to address the issue in a slightly different way. Is the aim somehow to ring-fence the DC covenant of the scheme funder and prevent them from having other financial obligations that might take away from the support for this master trust, or to minimise the burden on checking accounts? Obviously, it is easier to review the accounts of a stand-alone entity than of a much broader group. Hopefully, if we could better understand what the rationale is, it might be possible to address some of the very important concerns that have been expressed by some of our major insurance companies.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his amendment. I gently point out that there is a spelling mistake in it, but there are other reasons for resisting it.

Amendments 19 and 20, tabled by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, deal with Clause 10, which sets out the requirements that a scheme funder must meet in order for a master trust to be authorised. I hope to explain to noble Lords, particularly my noble friend, the thinking behind insisting that there is a separate legal entity behind each scheme. A scheme funder by definition is key to the master trust’s financial sustainability. By “scheme funder” we mean a person who is liable to provide funds in relation to the scheme when the administration charges paid by and in respect of members are not sufficient to cover the scheme’s costs, or someone who is entitled to receive profits when the scheme’s charges exceed its costs.

Amendment 19 would remove the requirement for the scheme funder to be a separate legal entity that carries on business activities only directly related to the master trust, and would replace it with a requirement for the scheme funder to be approved by the Pensions Regulator. I listened with interest to the points that noble Lords made in respect of that amendment. Amendment 20 would similarly remove the requirement for a master trust’s scheme funder to be a separate legal entity that carries on only the master trust business. The effect of both amendments would be to allow the same legal entity that acts as scheme funder to engage in business activities not directly related to the master trust, making it more difficult for the Pensions Regulator to identify matters relevant to the master trust and therefore to assess the financial sustainability of the scheme.

To enable the regulator to assess the financial position of the scheme with certainty when deciding whether the master trust should be authorised or remain authorised, the scheme funder must be set up as a separate legal entity. This is defined in the Bill as meaning, in effect, a legal person whose only business activities are in relation to the master trust. Requiring scheme funders to be separate legal entities will make their financial position, and the financial arrangements between them and the master trust, more transparent to the regulator and provide greater clarity regarding the assets, liabilities, costs and income in relation to the master trust business. This will greatly assist the regulator in carrying out its assessment of schemes’ financial sustainability.

There will be greater transparency regarding any additional funding streams coming into the scheme funder entity, and the level of commitment of those funds for the purposes of running the master trust, should the scheme funder be in receipt of income generated from other lines of business carried on by connected entities. The amendments would remove that transparency by making it possible for the scheme funder to carry on business activities not related to the master trust under the same corporate entity. It would therefore be difficult for the regulator to identify the financial sustainability or otherwise of the master trust.

One of the other authorisation criteria of which the regulator needs to be satisfied is that the people involved in the master trust scheme are fit and proper. Clause 7 specifies people that the regulator must assess for this purpose, including the scheme funder. It is not clear to what extent Amendment 19, requiring the scheme funder to be approved by the regulator, would differ from the assessment that the regulator is already required to carry out under Clause 7. Requiring the regulator to approve the scheme funder in general terms, rather than setting out requirements in the primary legislation requiring the scheme funder to be set up as a separate legal entity, would not only potentially make the financial sustainability of the scheme less clear to the regulator but would also give master trusts and scheme funders less certainty about the conditions that must be met for authorisation.

To turn back to the requirement for the scheme funder to be set up as a separate legal entity, I am aware that a number of concerns have been raised about the impact that this will have on existing businesses, such as the removal of protection and cross-subsidy through diversified lines of business supporting the master trust, restrictions on the use of shared services and the disruption of existing business. I shall come to each of these in turn, but I reassure the House that this authorisation criterion is not designed to prevent funds from flowing from one business to another, nor is it our intention to disrupt existing arrangements unnecessarily. The overarching aim of the requirements is transparency in the cash flows to and from the master trust business, and the assets and liabilities related to it, so that the regulator can readily ascertain the financial position of the scheme funder and the financial arrangements between the funder and the scheme. I think that paragraph answers the question asked by my noble friend Lady Altmann.

The requirements in Clause 10 do not prevent the master trust benefiting from the support of other businesses. Support can be offered from the scheme funder’s wider group explicitly through the provision of a legally enforceable guarantee or other formal arrangement from another group company of sufficient financial strength. Where the scheme funder currently conducts other businesses, a degree of cross-subsidy may already take place, and there is no intention to prevent this.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill. It is absolutely vital that the Government ensure that people’s pensions are properly protected. The policy of auto-enrolment has been a significant success story in broadening coverage of private pensions and I am delighted that millions more people are saving for retirement with the help of their employer. Improving retirement provision across the population is vital in our ageing society and the Government’s excellent freedom and choice reforms, allowing people to use their pension savings as suits them best, have paved the way for a better appreciation of the merits of pension saving. If we are truly to make policy in the interests of the many, not just the few, then having an attractive and safe private pension system for everyone is a vital element of future planning.

I confess that I was taken aback last summer when, as Pensions Minister, I discovered that proper protections for people’s trust-based defined contribution pension savings had not been put in place before auto-enrolment began. Under the FCA rules, contract-based pension money is protected and those setting up and selling pensions are subject to strict criteria. However, this is not the case for trust-based defined contribution pensions. Currently, members of DC pension trusts could lose their entire pension, and all their employer contributions and tax relief too, if the scheme they have been contributing to winds up. Even if the actual investments are protected, members could lose their whole pension because all the costs of winding up the scheme—if they cannot be paid for by anyone else—might have to be met by the funds in the trust. It is, therefore, most welcome that the Government are finally taking action to address this. However, while we are putting the legislation in place, the House must ensure it achieves its main objectives. Therefore, there are important areas on which noble Lords will no doubt seek assurances from the Minister in Committee.

The House must be confident that the proposed protections will actually work in practice. When I first started working with government on pensions policy in 2000, it was on the issue of lack of protection for defined benefit pension trusts. Post-Maxwell, the Government of the day assured members that their pensions would in future be protected by legislation that introduced minimum funding standards. This MFR regime was supposed to mean that their DB scheme would always have enough money to pay the promised pensions, whatever happened to their employer. In practice, however, well-intentioned standards were inadequate and members ended up losing their entire pension. It took years of misery and campaigning before the Government acknowledged this lack of protection and introduced a proper insurance scheme for the future with regulatory powers to back it up. The Pension Protection Fund has worked well and the Government must ensure that any new regime to protect trust-based DC members will also provide proper protection.

Some of the issues which noble Lords will wish to explore include careful consideration of how adequate the capital adequacy safeguards will really be. We will certainly need to drill down into this more in Committee. I welcome the extension of the Pensions Regulator’s powers and the requirement for master trusts to pay for authorisation and an ongoing levy. However, it is not clear how any new regulations will dovetail with the existing master trust assurance framework that has been used by the regulator to assess master trust scheme quality. That framework does not include coverage of wind-up costs, nor adequately cover employer or member communications to ensure that proper, clear warnings are in place about the impact of such things as using a net pay scheme for workers who earn below £11,000 a year and could be required to pay a 20% penalty on their pension savings, for example.

Millions of people are already saving in master trusts, so noble Lords will be interested to hear from the Minister how existing scheme members will be protected. If their DC trust fails between now and when the new rules are enacted, what provision is the Government making to cover wind-up costs or ensure a smooth takeover of members’ pensions? Will there be a default scheme that can take over while the past records are clarified? Will there be new rules to ensure that bulk transfers between DC schemes can legally occur promptly and efficiently, with immunity for the receiving scheme against providers’ past mistakes to ensure continuity of pension coverage for members of failed trusts? As regards the definition of “master trusts”, there may be some confusion. Currently, the definitions in Clause 1 differ from the definition of “relevant multiemployer schemes” in the charges and governance regulations that were introduced in Parliament only last year. Noble Lords may be interested to understand why this is the case, and whether the Bill should look to align the definitions.

I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure the House that all relevant schemes will be covered by the Bill, and that all pension trust members will be protected on wind-up. It is not currently clear whether the definitions in the Bill are adequate. For example, a single employer trust could potentially take in DC savings from other employers, but would then not be covered by these protections for master trust members. Will the Bill ensure that the new measures cover all relevant pension saving trusts, whether for pension accumulation or decumulation, so that we do not find ourselves in need of further legislation in coming years because some schemes fell through the cracks left by the current measures?

Currently, the FCA protection regime for contract-based schemes is far tougher than that run by the Pensions Regulator for trust-based DC, and there has clearly been some regulatory arbitrage. It seems strange, however, that an insurance company with a diversified business fully regulated by the FCA would not be permitted to back a master trust. This Bill would force the existing large insurers to set up separate entities to run their master trust, which may weaken the protection for members rather than strengthen it. Will my noble friend the Minister explain why an existing large regulated insurer is not considered suitable to run a master trust, but a much smaller company whose only business is the master trust itself would be considered more suitable?

I believe noble Lords may also wish to understand what consideration has been given to an insurance arrangement along the lines of the PPF itself to cover wind-up costs if no other means exist. If the scheme funder is a limited liability company, and this company becomes insolvent, where could wind-up costs be covered from? It is a little-known fact that the Pension Protection Fund already has a provision to insure all trust-based pension schemes against fraud, including master trusts, I believe. Could this fraud compensation scheme perhaps be extended to ensure that existing master trust members were protected in the event of scheme wind-up in the near term? Imposing regulatory operational capital requirements for DC schemes is, of course, a valid policy but this is no guarantee of member security—think of the banking system, for example. Insuring against a catastrophe would usually be more efficient than every fund setting aside money just in case the worst happens. An insurance option, however, has not been included in the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, even though it was considered at industry round tables and consultations. Will regulators know in advance what amount of capital is needed to ensure adequacy? The actual costs of wind-up will not be known, or knowable, in advance. Therefore, it is important for the House to be reassured that the Government’s new proposals will work in practice, or that there is an alternative contingency plan in place for the failure of a DC pension trust whose records are in disarray.

I also support and welcome this Bill’s proposed ban on early exit charges and member-borne commission, which will enhance pension outcomes for customers. I hope that the 1% cap proposed by the FCA will be introduced as quickly as possible. In all good conscience I admit support for the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in relation to women’s state pensions, where the failure to communicate state pension age rises and failure to allow thousands of mostly female low-paid part-time workers to accrue either state or workplace pensions has caused, and will cause, retirement hardship. But that is not the issue for today.

In summary, I welcome the Government’s legislation that aims to protect members of master trusts. Members’ interests are so important. It is imperative, however, to ensure that the planned protections will have the best possible chance of working in practice and, of course, if any measures can be introduced in this Bill to reduce the scourge of pension losses resulting from scams and frauds, that too will be most welcome.

Personal Independence Payment

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to amend the Personal Independence Payment mobility criteria.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, there are no plans to amend the mobility criteria in personal independence payment. The Government consulted extensively when designing the criteria, including a specific consultation on the “moving around” activity. The criteria provide a more consistent assessment for claimants with both physical and non-physical impairments, and there are now 22,000 more people on the Motability scheme than before PIP was introduced.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I note the Minister’s reply. As she will recognise, this Question arises from a debate that was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, about a month ago. That was about the qualifying criteria for the enhanced mobility component under PIP—particularly that those who could reliably walk no more than just 20 metres will not qualify, losing £35 a week and vital support to live independent lives. When the Minister responded to that debate, she asserted that claimants who cannot walk up to 50 metres would be guaranteed the enhanced rate. I think there has been some pulling back from that position, which is regrettable. Given that the Minister was clearly content to enunciate the policy relating to 50 metres, will she not now actively join others in seeking the reinstatement of the 50-metre benchmark as a research base measure of significant mobility impairment?

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I have issued a correction of the response to the Official Report. It is indeed possible for those who are unable reliably to walk more than 20 metres to get the enhanced rate, but there is no generally accepted measurement of distance that will be recognised as appropriate. The aim of the enhanced rate is, and always was under DLA, to help people who are either unable or virtually unable to walk. Under PIP, the test is widened so that it is not just those who are unable or virtually unable to walk, but those who have barriers to mobility and who find it difficult to get around. These issues need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. They are expertly assessed. Indeed, we engaged directly with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, subsequent to that debate as we want to get this right.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, but on the consultation that the Minister mentioned, the Government took absolutely no notice of more than 1,000 responses that were quite clear. My question is about the tribunal hearings. The Government’s own research shows that for claimants whose appeal is allowed, often their evidence is oral evidence, not just written evidence from doctors. In other words, the assessors are not asking the right questions, they are not listening to the answers, or the policy is too confusing. What is going on if that is the case?

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Baroness obviously makes a very well-informed point. I can assure the House that the Minister for Disabled People is actively working on this; we want to get it right. We are trying to improve the original assessment. Obviously it is in everyone’s interest to get the correct decision as early as possible, so we are now giving assessors an extra 10 working days to help applicants gather their information. Many appeals succeed because they produce new evidence that was not available at the time of the original assessment.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government recently facilitated a meeting between Atos, Capita and the Royal British Legion, where I was privileged to work as its head of public affairs. Will my noble friend join me in congratulating Charles Byrne on his appointment as the new director-general of the legion? Will she undertake to explore how more disabled people, such as injured veterans, might be encouraged to apply to be PIP assessors?

[Baroness Altmann]

I certainly join my noble friend in congratulating the new director-general. I have already been working on his excellent suggestion and have made inquiries about how many of our assessors are disabled. I am assured that applications for assessors are open to people regardless of disability. Indeed, we would welcome disabled people applying to be assessors as they would be very well placed to make these assessments, but we do not have the figures at the moment to be able to report to the House how many of our assessors are disabled.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, nearly 14,000 disabled people have been forced to give up their Motability car following implementation of the new PIP rules on mobility. Motability provides a support package to anyone forced to leave the scheme as a result. This helps people to remain mobile, in many cases by purchasing a used car. What support will the Government give to Motability to enable it to provide the support package for those forced off the scheme?

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Lord rightly cites that Motability offers a support package. It has volunteered to do so given its financial position, and very generously offered to help those who lose their Motability car. I stress that although some people lost their cars, overall some 22,000 more people now have a Motability car under the PIP scheme.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Minister wrote to me to put the record straight after the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, she conceded that her original statement that there was not a 20-metre rule was wrong. In fact, somebody who could walk 20 metres but not 50 metres could get the enhanced rate of PIP only if there was something else going on; for example, they might have a learning disability and struggle to plan a journey. When we come back to basics, this means that somebody who can walk only a very short distance, the length of two buses, will lose their Motability car simply because they will now fail a test they would once have passed. This test has been used for 35 years, is based on research evidence, and is used for the blue badge, the guidance on the built environment and lots of other tests. The Government got this one wrong. Will they not accept that now?

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Baroness has significant expertise in this area. Once again, I apologise for the incorrect statement that I read out during the debate. However, I am assured that it is not a strict 20-metre rule and that some people who cannot walk more than 20 metres—of course, the reliability criterion is also important here—will receive the higher rate. I repeat that the aim was to ensure that we support at the highest rate people who are unable or virtually unable to walk. There is no one particular test—the 50-metre test is not a recognised one, either—for someone who is unable or virtually unable to walk. We are keeping this closely under review. It is widely accepted by stakeholders that PIP is now in a settled and improving state.

Life Chances Strategy

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Farmer on securing this debate today, and also thank all Members from all sides of the House who contributed to the discussion.

This is a priority issue for the Government. When we talk about life chances, what we mean is a relentless focus—an all-out assault, as the Prime Minister calls it—on tackling the root causes of poverty in Britain today. It is about ensuring that every individual, no matter what their background, is able to realise their potential. Some people are held back by deep-rooted social problems. The life chances strategy will set out our comprehensive plan to tackle disadvantage and extend opportunity, as announced by the Prime Minister in his speech of 11 January. The strategy will describe how we are working across government to break down some of these barriers to opportunity and to transform people’s lives. This will be a cross-government initiative.

We have already introduced the new life chances measures through the Welfare Reform and Work Act, which will focus action on the root causes of child poverty rather than the symptoms. The Act introduces the new duty for the Government to report annually on children in workless households and children’s educational attainment—two of the five measures outlined by my noble friend Lady Stroud. We have chosen these measures because the evidence is clear that these are the factors with the biggest impact on child poverty and children’s life chances.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and many others have observed, we know that being part of a working household is the best route out of poverty. Children in workless families are around three times as likely to be in poverty as those where at least one parent works. As my noble friends Lord Lupton and Lady Jenkin and others have observed, this is important from the point of view of role models as well as just having more money coming in. Evidence shows that nearly three-quarters of poor workless families where the parents found full employment escaped poverty.

I am proud that this Government have a strong record on improving employment to date. The employment rate remains the highest on record, at 74.1% and with 31.4 million people in work. The number of children living in workless households is at a record low. It has fallen by 450,000 since 2010. That is 450,000 more children who now benefit from the role modelling, the health benefits and the economic security of living in a home where adults are going to work. The Government have introduced major structural changes to the welfare and tax systems to ensure that work always pays for families. This includes universal credit, changes to the personal tax allowance and the national living wage. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about universal credit, but it is designed to ensure that work pays. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Freud has already met the Resolution Foundation to go through some of its findings and some of the areas which its analysis may have missed.

Of course we all recognise that education can be central to transforming children’s futures. I recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Fink in this area, and the involvement of many Members of this House in the academies programme. It is clear that educational attainment is the biggest single factor in ensuring that poor children do not end up as poor adults. We are determined to deliver educational excellence everywhere so that every child, regardless of their background, reaches their potential. Let me set out briefly what we are doing to achieve this. The Government are raising standards with a rigorous new curriculum, world-class exams and a new accountability system that rewards those schools which help every child to achieve their best. In particular, the Government introduced the pupil premium in the last Parliament, which provides schools with additional money to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils of all abilities. It is up to schools to decide how to spend this funding.

I certainly agree with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro on food poverty. We have invested £1 billion over two years in universal infant free school meals, for example. Our measures on education will drive real action and will make a big difference to disadvantaged children both now and in the future.

I echo the sentiments expressed by many noble Lords about the importance of the family and improving life chances via that most important element of any society. I certainly agree with, and support, the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro in that regard. We must continue to affirm and reaffirm the importance of families in helping to give their children the best start in life. I am personally passionate about the role that all members of the family, including grandparents—an often overlooked and underplayed element of many families—can play in improving the well-being of children.

We are doing more to support couples and parents during difficult times—and even to anticipate difficulties—with our relationship support programmes. The recently published report from the Early Intervention Foundation found that conflict between parents can have such a devastating impact on children’s mental health and long-term outcomes. That is why it is so important that we help every mother and father be the best that they can be. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about the importance of relationships in that regard. That is why we have already doubled the funding for relationship support and have increased the amount of free childcare to support parents. It is also why we have targeted those families that need the most help. Our troubled families programme has turned around 120,000 families that had complex and deep-rooted problems and we are extending this to 400,000 more families. It is another prime example of collaborative work across government, with DCLG working with my own department and others on this programme. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government are indeed working on a cross-departmental basis on this important new strategy.

Our life chances strategy will include a wider set of non-statutory measures on the root causes of disadvantage, including problem debt and drug and alcohol dependency. These non-statutory measures will work alongside the statutory life chances measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Act and will help us to drive real action on the deep-rooted and complex social problems that so many disadvantaged people face. The Prime Minister announced in his speech in January several new policies to transform the lives of the most disadvantaged.

As my noble friend Lord Holmes, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro rightly stated, mental health issues must also be tackled. We are making a £290 million investment into mental health by 2020, which will mean, for example, that at least 30,000 more women each year will have access to specialist mental health care during or after pregnancy. We are committed to improving access to better services and promoting early intervention to address children’s and young people’s mental ill health issues before they worsen and we are investing an additional £1.4 billion over the next five years. We have also invested £120 million to introduce waiting time standards for mental health services for the first time.

I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Farmer on the importance of stable relationships in ensuring better life chances and that it is about far more than just giving people money.

My noble friend Lord Holmes also made an important contribution in his powerful speech. I am pleased that he welcomes the Government’s sports strategy and I echo his commendation of organisations such as YoungMinds and comments on the importance of supporting those with both mental and physical needs. A healthy mind in a healthy body is certainly something that I fully endorse.

We are also making a £1 billion investment in the National Citizen Service, which will be extended to 60% of all 16 and 17 year-olds over the next few years, to show young people the power of public service. We will be using work experience much more creatively to give young people the encouragement they need to get into further education, employment or training when they leave school. We will also be supporting those with drug and alcohol addictions to help them to turn their lives around and fully recover.

I also agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson about the role of the voluntary sector and the contribution that it can make. I know that other noble Lords also very much support that sector, which has a vital role to play.

As my noble friend Lady Jenkin mentioned, social networks are important, as are role models. She is absolutely correct to set out a number of the challenging issues faced by so many in society.

My noble friend Lord Young mentioned the importance of mentoring and careers advice, which, again, we are focusing on. It is true that there is more to be done on tackling housing and transforming housing estates. It is unarguable that this will have cost implications and I certainly assure my noble friend that we intend to pursue this energetically and with vigour.

Of course, I agree with my noble friend Lady Stroud, who knows so much about this area, about the importance of monitoring the impact of the life chances strategy and developing indicators, as well as a special focus on children in care.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

It is important that the Minister is able to give the House an assurance that the Prime Minister’s earlier exercise in trying to family-proof new legislation is continued through the rest of this Parliament. Can she give us an assurance that the legislation in the Queen’s Speech will be subject to the family-proofing that the Prime Minister set out some months ago in his speech?

[Baroness Altmann]

As the noble Lord is well aware, I cannot anticipate what will be in the Queen’s Speech, but I can certainly repeat that the family test is applied to all new policies developed by this Government.

My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made an emotional and passionate intervention on something that I feel very strongly about, and I certainly agree about the importance of considering all the requirements for a successful working life for disabled graduates, as well as the early encouragement of disabled children.

In conclusion, we have already committed to tackling the root causes of poverty. I am sorry that I have not had time to go into more detail about all the points that have been raised in this excellent debate. But I assure noble Lords that our intention is that, by putting people first and reiterating the importance of family in our new life chances strategy, we will, together, be able to transform people’s lives. Our forthcoming explanation of and further information on the life chances strategy will demonstrate how we and others across society will be able to achieve this.

Personal Independence Payment: Mobility Criterion

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, for moving this Motion and for explaining carefully the nature of the problem that we address tonight. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, many of whom I have heard address the same issue repeatedly. It is very good to hear them again tonight and I pay tribute to them and to the noble Lord, Lord Alton—he is in his place but has not spoken tonight—who again has been tenacious in his support of the issues around Motability for some time.

I hope very much that the Minister has come here tonight in a constructive spirit and ready to listen, because she has heard stories from people who know a great deal about this, have a great deal of experience and who know whereof they speak. As we have heard, the shift from DLA with its qualifying threshold of 50 metres to PIP where 20 metres became the new rule for the enhanced component has been very controversial from the outset. The change was hugely unpopular. The Disability Benefits Consortium reminded us in its briefing for this debate that when the Government consulted, 914 of the 1,142 respondents indicated a clear preference for extending the qualifying distance for the enhanced rate from 20 metres up to 50 metres. The arguments were compelling. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie has just made clear, 50 metres was a widely recognised, established benchmark based on research used by many other government departments and other measures around the world. It is clearly a sensible choice. By comparison, no case was ever made for 20 metres. It became increasingly clear to all concerned that in practice what was sought was a criterion that more people would fail, and that would therefore result in less money paid out. It was designed to save money, or more precisely to transfer money from disabled people to the Exchequer.

This is a significant loss. The noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out that some half a million people could lose money and that this could be over £30 a week. But I want to reinforce the point that this is one of those benefits explicitly designed to deal with the extra cost of disability. We really risk losing that dimension of social security at our peril. This is not simply a handout: it is about recognising that for disabled people to do the things that other people take for granted—to take their children to school, have a social life and have a job—they need access to transport that is not provided for them by the state. There are two ways that we can deal with this. We can make our public transport system dramatically more accessible and cover the entire country or, for a fraction of that cost, we can carry on making payments to enable disabled people who qualify for this to go to Motability or elsewhere to get access to transport.

I pray that the day will come when the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will never have to drag herself on to a train again. Only she could manage it: those who are not Paralympic athletes might struggle. But I hope very much that that will not be the situation for very much longer. In the mean time, people need access to vehicles.

Crucially, we have already heard that some 14,000 people have lost their Motability vehicles after being reassessed for PIP. That is cracking on for half of all the reassessments, so there are some significant losses ahead of us. Also, we have heard compelling cases from various noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, of cases where the assessment has gone spectacularly, farcically wrong. When the Minister comes to respond, I am sure the temptation in the brief at this point will be to say that these are isolated cases and things can always go wrong, but if they can go that wrong, something has gone wrong with the quality process somewhere down the line. It means that something systemic has to be addressed. The reality is that the system is not working. It is broken. Disabled people have suffered significantly already. They have suffered very badly from social security spending cuts in the last Parliament and in this one. While the U-turn in the Budget on PIP was very welcome, the Government are still cutting spending on disability benefits by £1.2 billion by the end of this Parliament.

I have some questions for the Minister. How many people does she now predict will lose the higher rate mobility component by 2020? How many will lose their Motability cars as a result of the PIP reassessment? Is she satisfied with the way that the “moving around” assessments are conducted? Finally, is she happy with the outcomes of the reduction to 20 metres? Is it working as the Government planned? I asked the Minister on 7 March how she felt the loss of Motability cars and other access to support would help the Government to tackle the disability employment gap. She reassured me that the Government were committed to halving the disability employment gap and said that the PIP approach was more consistent and fairer than DLA. The Government, we understand, will produce a White Paper on disability. If they are serious about tackling the disability employment gap and increasing opportunities for disabled people to participate fully in our society, they have to do something about this. I am pleased to support this Motion.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, I first assure the noble Baroness and the House that this Government have always been, and continue to be, fully committed to engaging with disabled people and organisations such as Disability Benefits Consortium and Disability Rights UK. I know that the Minister for Disabled People met the noble Baroness on 18 April to discuss the very issue raised in this debate. I also echo the sentiments of the Secretary of State during his Statement to Parliament last month. We are a one-nation Government committed to supporting everyone to achieve their full potential and to live independent lives.

Integral to that vision is ensuring that those with the greatest need are supported the most. We introduced the personal independence payment because disability living allowance was no longer fit for purpose. Under DLA, we assessed people purely on the basis of a disability, rather than considering individuals’ needs.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I must disagree with the Minister on that point. I had an assessment, and nobody took any notice of the fact that I had a serious progressive condition. Therefore, my named disability did not count for anything, which is what the Minister just said.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I can only assure the House again that the aim of PIP is to make sure that the assessment looks at the individual and their needs, unlike the previous system, where there was no face-to-face assessment and decisions were made without the professional medical advice which we have brought in under PIP. Under DLA, too many people were given lifetime awards—that is at the heart of some of the problems we have been hearing about this evening—whereas under PIP claimants have regular reviews to make sure that the support they get reflects their current circumstances.

Unlike DLA, PIP considers mental health, cognitive impairments and other non-physical disabilities equally, but this is not just about trading off between mental and physical conditions, as the noble Baroness may have feared. It is about getting the right support that reflects current circumstances. Under DLA, people were not necessarily seen by an assessor. Neither is this about saving money—we are spending more on PIP, and more people have Motability cars now than when PIP started.

The system is working. Some 22% of claimants now receive the highest rates of both components compared to only 15% under DLA. Therefore, under PIP more people are getting more help. Some 22,000 more people are using the Motability scheme since PIP was introduced, and as noble Lords will be aware, for DLA claimants leaving the Motability scheme following a PIP reassessment, we have agreed a £175 million package of transitional support with Motability, including a £2,000 payment for most claimants.

PIP is performing well. We have now cleared well over 1 million claims for PIP, and the majority of claimants appear to be happy with their PIP decision. The suggestion that so many people are appealing and overturning their assessment is simply not the case. Only 5% of PIP claims have gone to appeal, and 40% of those appeals—not the 60% figure mentioned by the noble Baroness—were successful. Therefore, the proportion of PIP assessments which are overturned on appeal is 2%. When a decision is overturned it does not automatically mean that the original decision was wrong. Often claimants provide additional evidence not available to the original DWP decision-makers.

We are committed to engaging with disabled people, and that was fundamental to the design of PIP in the first place. We held a widespread consultation on the very topic of this debate—the moving around criteria.

I would like to clarify what appears to be a widespread misconception regarding the differences between the mobility assessment in PIP and the mobility assessment in DLA. Many noble Lords have spoken of a “20-metre rule”, but there is no such rule. Some people believe that we have changed the assessment of a distance a claimant is able to walk from 50 metres to 20 metres. This is not the case. The higher rate of DLA was always intended to be for claimants who were unable, or virtually unable, to walk. This is still the case in PIP, but we have gone further. Under PIP, if a claimant cannot walk up to 20 metres safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a timely manner, they are guaranteed to receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component. If a claimant cannot walk up to 50 metres safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a timely manner, then they are guaranteed to receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that if a claimant is in extreme pain, they will be assessed as not reliably able to walk that distance. The reliability criteria are a key protection for claimants.

It was after my department’s work with the noble Baroness and noble Lords in 2013 that we set out these terms, not just in guidance but in regulations, confirming our commitment to getting this right. If a claimant cannot walk up to 50 metres without such problems, they will still be entitled to the mobility component at the standard rate. If they cannot walk that distance reliably and in the other ways in which we have protected it, they will be entitled to the enhanced rate. Therefore, the enhanced mobility component of PIP goes to those people who are most severely impacted and who struggle to walk without difficulty.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

The Minister is doing a comprehensive job of explaining the background, and that is important. However, will she accept that there is a great deal of frustration within the disabled community? In spite of repeated freedom of information requests to get some of the data and the metrics around the things she has just been describing, the department has hidden behind the view that these are ONS-qualified statistics and therefore it has to wait until they have been properly digested and published. My point is that this Motion is a request for urgent talks. We believe that this policy is going badly wrong. Will the Minister use her good offices to get the meeting that is being asked for so that the talks can look at what the data are telling us about the level of losses, which we have only the word of Motability to go on? It is doing the best that it can, but these are not comprehensive statistics. The fact is that, as we sit and speak this afternoon, we do not know the extent to which this policy is taking away the enhanced mobility component in PIP. That is dangerous, because if we do not get in touch with that information and use it to assess what is going on, we will not make this change early enough, and this policy will need to change.

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I can assure him from my own experience that it is important that we have any statistics properly verified before they are released as official statistics. We will release relevant data, and if we have any further information, I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with any other data we can provide.

As regards the information that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked for on the amount of money spent on mandatory reconsiderations and appeals, we will provide written details of those costs.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, when the Minister was describing the 20-metre rule and 50-metre rule, I could see a lot of puzzlement around the Chamber. It may just be that I was not keeping up with her, so will she indulge the House for a moment and clarify that? I understood from the Government’s justification, included in the House of Commons briefing on Motability, that,

“We recognise that people who are unable to reliably walk more than 50 metres”—

and it goes on to say that they will get the standard rate, which will go,

“to those who cannot reliably walk between 20 and 50 metres”,

and the enhanced rate will be for below 20 metres. Therefore, can the Minister explain to us whether what I have described is not true? That is what the House of Commons briefing on this says.

[Baroness Altmann]

To reiterate for the noble Baroness, if a claimant cannot walk up to 50 metres safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a timely manner, they are guaranteed to receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component. Therefore, there is not a strict 20-metre rule. There is discretion, and an individual assessment is made. We take into account whether the person is in pain and whether they can reliably walk or manage on their own.

I can also reassure noble Lords that our door is open. We are happy to engage. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Disabled People regularly engage with disability groups. We would like to continue to do so. Clearly, we want to make sure that this new process is working. As far as we can see at the moment, it appears to be.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I am aware that Ministers have regular talks with disability organisations, but the request behind the Motion is not that Ministers engage in general talks with them about a range of issues. The point of the Motion is to call on the Government to have specific talks directed at addressing the particular problem identified in the Motion and in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank the noble Lord. The general point I am trying to make is that we are not convinced that there is the problem being identified or described by many noble Lords. If there are problems in the assessment process—of course, it relies on human beings and it is possible that, from time to time, an assessment may not be done correctly—that is why we have the appeals process. But the figure I quoted to the House, that 2% of the assessment appeals are upheld, does not currently suggest that there is a big problem. Indeed, it appears that the PIP assessment process is doing what we want it to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about the healthcare professionals carrying out the assessment. They have to consider the reliability criteria as part of the assessment process, and they also have to be registered with a relevant professional body, such as the General Medical Council. They have to have a minimum of two years’ post-registration experience. They also undergo rigorous training and assessment. It is early days, but it seems that the process is working.

We would indeed expect the haemophilia example that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about to be taken into account properly by the assessment process. All the evidence presented by the claimant, along with any obtained by the healthcare professional undertaking the PIP assessment, will be fully considered. Therefore, if a claimant is exposed to a high level of risk when undertaking certain activities, that will be taken into account. Claimants who require supervision when completing activities will receive the appropriate PIP award. I can also assure the noble Baroness that providers can undertake home visits where necessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked the Government whether we are looking at effective value for money for taxpayers. This is indeed why we are moving from DLA to PIP. We want to ensure that we look at people and their condition with a face-to-face assessment, rather than under the previous system, so that we can spend the public money we spend on disabled people in the most appropriate manner. This issue was also raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. We certainly agree that individuals must be treated as individuals, which, again, is the aim of PIP assessment as well as the Access to Work scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, mentioned the consultation. We have undertaken extensive consultation. The department does not consider further consultation necessary, but as I said, we are more than happy to meet with stakeholders to discuss the PIP assessment and any suggested improvements to the guidance or working practices of the assessment providers.

I hope that I have addressed the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the assessors we use. They are health professionals. Indeed, they must have knowledge of the clinical aspects and the likely functional effects of a wide range of health conditions and impairments. I can also inform the House that we have just implemented a new contractual regime that will drive further improvements to the assessment through independent audit and revised audit criteria, and that we regularly review the guidance for the PIP assessors.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, rightly said, PIP is specifically designed to help disabled people meet the additional costs of a disability. We believe that the current assessment process is working. Indeed, as I stressed, more than 22% of claimants now receive the highest rate of both components, compared with only 15% under DLA.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I have listened patiently to the Minister’s remarks during the course of the debate. Does she dispute the figure given by the 60 different disabled people’s charities that have made representations: that 13,000 scheme users have already lost their vehicles? Putting aside all the other arguments, some of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said are impossible to dispute, that surely demonstrates that the scheme is not working and that people are suffering. Surely, on that basis, she will concede the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made that there should at least be a meeting with those organisations that have expressed concerns to your Lordships.

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank the noble Lord, and I stress again that we were always aware that there would be people who would lose their Motability cars when we changed from a system that relied on lifetime awards and did not assess people’s current circumstances, to one that does. If someone’s is going through a PIP assessment whose circumstances have changed—who previously was not seen face to face, perhaps, and who had a lifetime award—and they are judged no longer to be unable, or almost unable, to walk, they will therefore not be entitled to the enhanced rate component and will lose their car. We knew that that was a result, but that is part of the process.

When making his Statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State said:

“I want to start a new conversation with disabled people”,—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/16; col. 1269.]

and disability organisations. So I say once again that we are listening; our door is open. We have recently changed the rules, for example, for terminally ill claimants to ensure they no longer have to wait 28 days to receive the enhanced rates of PIP if they transfer from DLA. We are also revisiting our approach to award reviews to make better use of the evidence we already have, so that claimants do not have to give us the same information again if their circumstances have not changed. We are listening to the views of noble Lords; we want their views and those of disability groups; we value the expertise of noble Lords in this House and I say again that we are happy to meet the organisations.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before the Minister sits down, can we just revert to the discussion about the 20-metre and 50-metre rule, and whether it is a rule or not? As I understand it, she was saying that it is possible for somebody who can walk more than 20 metres to qualify for the highest mobility component. Of the total number of people who qualify, how many qualify on that basis and how many qualify because the 20-metre rule operates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

Of course, I do not have those figures to hand and I do not know whether they are available. It is not a strict 20-metre rule—it is an indication—and I repeat that if somebody can walk more than 20 metres, they can still get the enhanced rate component; it does depend on the assessment.

I close by stressing once again that we—the department, the Secretary of State and Ministers—are happy to meet disability groups to discuss this issue, which is clearly very important and causing significant concern. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. It has been very illuminating. All the speakers have painted one picture; the Minister has painted a different picture, and we must have some meeting in the middle, somewhere, because it is not right to leave it as it is. I have heard from Citizens Advice, which is, after all, independent, as everyone knows. It says: “Our experience is that the quality of assessment continues to be poor and our advisers in local Citizens Advice across the country have identified the reduction of disability-related benefits generally, and the loss of Motability eligibility specifically, as an emerging and increasing issue in the past few months”. Something is clearly going wrong, but I am extremely pleased that the Minister has said that the department is willing to meet those groups that I referred to in my Motion, and I therefore commend my Motion to the House.

State Pension

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people they expect to benefit from the new state pension, and what will be the average increase per person.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, by 2030 the new state pension will result in higher state pension payments for 6 million future pensioners, who will receive on average £10 a week more state pension, with 3 million women receiving on average £11 a week more and 3 million men receiving £9 a week more.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for those encouraging numbers. The old system was complicated and confusing, and many people were left uncertain of what their income would be in retirement. Does my noble friend think that the new system, which is not just higher but clearer, might encourage more people to save for their retirement?

[Baroness Altmann]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The aim of the new state pension is that people will have a much clearer idea of how much they can get from the state pension without extensive means testing so that it is clear and safe for them to save as they can on top of it.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

What estimate have the Government made of the result of less means testing, which means less passporting to other benefits for those who were means tested, who presumably will not now receive those benefits? What is the overall saving to the Government in that respect?

[Baroness Altmann]

The estimates are that the new state pension will be cost-neutral for the first few decades. Therefore, the aim is that we can give people security and an understanding of what they will get from the state system, and that, as we roll out auto-enrolment to ensure that every worker will have a private pension, it is safe for those workers all around the country to save for their future so that they can supplement their own income.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government seriously consider ending the anomalously tax-free status of the winter fuel payment by consolidating it into the basic state pension, which is, of course, taxable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

This Government have made an absolute commitment that winter fuel payments will be protected up to 2020. Any changes that a future Government may wish to make will be decided in due course.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

One of the groups that particularly benefits from the high state pension, championed by my colleague Steve Webb in the last Government, is the self-employed. However, the proportion of self-employed in private pensions is disappearing over a cliff. What plan do the Government have to address this problem?

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Lord makes an important point; it is one that the Government have already been looking at. The new state pension will give much more clarity and generosity to the base on which the self-employed can build. The new lifetime ISA may be an opportunity for the self-employed to save in a way that they might be more comfortable with, rather than locking money irrevocably into a pension in their 20s and 30s.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we know, and the Minister has confirmed, that overall expenditure on pensioner benefits is projected to be broadly the same under the new system as under the old until about 2040. Thereafter, expenditure growth is slower, so the Government plan to save money. There will be winners and losers. In particular among the losing category will be those currently in their 20s and 30s. The Government are pocketing some £4 billion to £5 billion extra a year from national insurance contributions because of the abolition of contracting out. Following another Budget disaster this year, the Government were forced to commit that there will be no more welfare cuts this Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that this applies to all existing pensioner benefits and that the triple lock, including that applied to the new state pension, will be applied as now? Further, should the UK leave the EU as the result of the referendum, what route, if any, will the Government take to preserve existing reciprocal pension uprating arrangements?

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Lord has asked about five questions. However, I can certainly reassure the House that there is an absolute commitment to protect pensioner benefits up to 2020, and the basic state pension and the full new state pension, through the triple lock. As regards the expenditure on state pension, the reason that there are losers, if you like, in the long run—although I would not call them losers—is that we need to make the state pension system sustainable. That is exactly what the new state pension system will do. Indeed, with the introduction of the state pension, 75% of women and 70% of men will get more state pension. In the long term, the aim is for the auto-enrolment private pension to make up for the loss of earnings-linked state pensions.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that is very welcome news, but reverting to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lawson, will my noble friend remind the House of the total cost of the winter fuel payment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

The cost of the winter fuel payment is approximately £2 billion per year. It provides security for older people by ensuring that they have the confidence to spend money on heating their homes, which otherwise they might not do. We know how vulnerable older people are to the cold.

Children: Parental Separation

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prioritise the wellbeing of children when their parents are going through separation.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, we are prioritising the well-being of children by helping parents resolve conflict during separation. We have doubled funding for relationship support for couples to £70 million during this Parliament and our innovation fund has worked with around 30,000 separated families to help them collaborate in the best interests of their children.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, we are all aware that post-conflict separation is very harmful for children and is often exacerbated by disputes over child maintenance payments, especially when government agencies are involved. Will my noble friend update the House on how the 2012 child maintenance reforms are working as regards payments made within family arrangements?

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I am delighted to report that our 2012 reforms have been a huge success so far. They have incentivised separating families to make their own arrangements rather than using the statutory system as a default option, as co-operation between parents is clearly better for their children. Seventy per cent of clients using the service are choosing direct pay.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

Will the Minister set out how her department is working with the Department of Health and the Department for Education to ensure that children whose parents are separating receive the support they need both through child and adolescent mental health services and counselling in schools?

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, the department is working with other departments in a cross-government strategy to support children, with a lot more funding for mental health issues and co-operation between the various departments.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, “so far” is a telling phrase. The Minister talked about the CSA but the Government are in the process of shutting down all CSA cases and telling parents that if they want to apply to the new scheme they have got to hand over one-fifth of all the money to the DWP in fees. However, they are allowed to apply to the new scheme only if they first ring a phone line and let someone on the other end of the phone try to talk them out of it and tell them to go away and make a deal with their ex directly. Mrs Thatcher set up the CSA to make sure that parents pay for their kids even if they are separated from the other parent. If there are any grounds to the growing concern that parents will end up paying less money to children than they have in the past, will the Minister accept that the strategy has failed and needs to be reviewed?

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Baroness clearly has significant expertise in this area, but I have to say that the current system, which was set up in 2012, does not automatically take 20% of the payments. As I say, the point of the new system is to encourage parents to make their own arrangements. It is only if they do not use the direct payment method that they will pay the additional premium for that service.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has reminded me—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, it is obvious that children who are not informed about what is happening to their parents when they are separating do much less well than those who are kept in the loop. What will the Government do to make this one of the really important aspects? Parents must let their children know, even at an early age, what is actually happening and make them part of the decision-making, or at least give them an understanding of what the future is going to be.

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble and learned Baroness makes another good point. We have been trialling interventions with our innovation fund where we are using the voice of the child to make sure that we include children in the conflict situation. We are also working with the Ministry of Justice to make those interventions work.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the proposals from the Scottish Government, which will be implemented this summer, for every child in Scotland under the age of 18 to have appointed for them a state guardian whose job it is to make sure that the parents are doing their duty? Can she reassure the House that if Scottish parents or parents living in Scotland move south, this outrageous scheme will not be continued in England?

[Baroness Altmann]

I can indeed assure the House that there are no such plans.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend support the idea of child contact centres being made available in every local authority area to enable parents who are not of wealthy means to have contact with their children? Were one fortunate enough to have a Private Member’s Bill on this in the next Session, would my noble friend support it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, the Government are considering their future policy on children’s centres, which are currently the responsibility of the Department for Education, as part of the development of the cross-government life chances strategy. We will publish more details on that in the summer.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that since the 2012 Act, the new arrangements have been a great success. How much additional money has gone to separating parents and their children; in other words, how much better off are those children, knowing that in the past many fathers would change their job, their address, their country and their name to avoid paying maintenance? Can she tell us how much additional money is going to children? If she cannot, because a lot of this is now voluntary, how does she know that it has been a success?

[Baroness Altmann]

I can assure noble Lords that we will be making a full report in the 30-month review of the scheme. However, the indications so far are that it has achieved its objective of helping parents agree between themselves how to arrange maintenance.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the cuts in legal aid have meant that parents, during the worst time of their lives, have been left to self-represent in court, struggling over the allocation of money to the detriment of the family. Will she tell the House if the Government have plans to reform the law on the allocation of money on divorce, preferably through my Private Member’s Bill?

[Baroness Altmann]

I will write to the noble Baroness about any such plans.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 1 and 8 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March.

Motions agreed.

Child Support (Deduction Orders and Fees) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2016

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2016 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Child Support (Deduction Orders and Fees) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2016.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 8 February 2016. They enable the department to waive collection and enforcement fees on the 2012 child maintenance scheme for a specific group of cases for a limited period of time. This is to support a process that provides a safety net for parents with care. It will require non-resident parents with a poor history of meeting their child maintenance obligations to demonstrate a change in behaviour and prove that they could reliably be allowed to access the direct pay service on the 2012 scheme rather than having to pay collection fees in the new scheme. We will also introduce minor technical amendments to the existing powers to improve the effectiveness of regular deduction orders and lump sum deduction orders.

A comprehensive reform of the child maintenance system began in 2012 which aims to incentivise parents to collaborate in the best interests of their children and move us away from the idea that state intervention via a statutory child maintenance scheme should be the default option for separated parents. To achieve these aims, a programme to close all existing Child Support Agency cases began in June 2014. Closing cases gives parents the chance to consider which arrangement best suits their circumstances for the future, while access to Child Maintenance Options, a free and impartial service, ensures that they have relevant information available to help inform this important decision.

Where parents believe a statutory solution would be best for them, they can apply to the new 2012 scheme, which is operated by the Child Maintenance Service. New, simplified calculation rules and improved IT systems are delivering better outcomes for parents and children. At the same time, fees and charges are helping to incentivise parents to consider closer collaboration and use a direct pay service, while also providing a contribution towards the cost of running the service. This policy change is predicated on the view that encouraging parents to co-operate when arranging child maintenance payments is likely to lead to less confrontation between parents, and this is ultimately normally in the best interests of the children.

When approaching case closure, we are of course mindful of the need to take careful steps to reduce the risks of child maintenance payments being disrupted, particularly for those cases where money is flowing only as a result of enforcement action being undertaken on the old CSA cases. We want to address concerns raised by stakeholders following the public consultation on case closure undertaken in 2012.

The last segment of cases that we will close—segment 5 —will include those cases where money is flowing as a result of enforcement action. But to try to give clients an opportunity to avoid charges, as well as giving a chance for future co-operation between parents who may have been in conflict previously, we want to introduce a new positive test of compliant behaviour for these previously recalcitrant non-resident parents. This is known as a compliance opportunity. The compliance opportunity will take place during the first six months of the 2012 scheme case for this group. During that time, the non-resident parent is required to pay half of their maintenance liability via the collection service by a non-enforced method of payment such as direct debit.

In order to ensure that the parent with care is protected, we will issue a deduction from earnings order to the non-resident parent’s employer to collect the other half of the ongoing maintenance liability directly from the non-resident parent’s wages, wherever this is possible. This payment safeguard aims to minimise disruption for the parent with care during the compliance opportunity. Where the non-resident parent misses even one payment, they will fail the compliance opportunity and prompt action will be taken to resume collection of the full amount of maintenance by the enforced method of payment already in place, with the collection and enforcement charges applied. Only in circumstances where the non-resident parent is not at fault will an exception be made.

If all payments are made, the non-resident parent will pass the compliance opportunity and have a chance to continue paying child maintenance directly to the parent with care in future. So the outcome of the compliance opportunity will inform a decision over whether a 2012 scheme case should be a direct pay arrangement, which does not attract collection fees, or a collect and pay arrangement, where CMS manages collections and the usual fees are charged.

The initial proposal, outlined by the previous Government, was to offer the compliance opportunity in the final six months of the closing CSA case. It would be offered to all clients regardless of whether they intended to apply to the new 2012 scheme. This would have meant expending resources unnecessarily, including significant investment in the CSA computer systems close to their retirement date. However, it is now our intent to move the compliance opportunity to the first six months of the new case. It will then be offered to those who choose to apply to the 2012 scheme before their CSA case closes and cannot agree between themselves on whether their new case should be managed on the direct pay service or the collect and pay service. We have consulted with stakeholders and they are supportive of this approach.

We will administer cases on the collect and pay service type for the duration of the compliance opportunity, which will allow us to use an enforced method of payment as a payment safeguard. Ordinarily these actions would attract collection and enforcement fees on the 2012 scheme, but we are committed to delivering a compliance opportunity as it protects the interests of the parent with care and can help to maximise the number of effective arrangements on the new 2012 scheme. The fee waiver that will be introduced under this instrument is required in order to be fair to both parents while testing the reliability of the non-enforced payments. That is considered necessary for the successful delivery of this essential measure.

The instrument will also make some technical amendments to clarify the existing rules governing regular deduction orders and lump sum deduction orders to allow them to include collection and enforcement charges. RDOs and LSDOs are enforced orders that are used to secure child maintenance liabilities by deducting money directly from non-resident parents’ bank accounts. The provisions in these regulations will put beyond doubt that we are able to collect the fees and charges associated with the new 2012 scheme, as well as the maintenance liability, and collect CSA arrears that have been moved to the 2012 system. This is in line with existing policy, and these provisions aim to put the legal position beyond doubt.

I am satisfied that the instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I commend it to the Grand Committee.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, there is no mention of CSA arrears in the new compliance opportunity in these 2016 regulations. Will the Minister expand on how those cases will be dealt with? Secondly, what does the Government’s analysis show about subsequent child maintenance outcomes where cases involving children have closed, particularly as the Minister has mentioned that IT systems were providing much better outcomes?

--- Later in debate ---

Mrs Thatcher, as Prime Minister, decided to set up the CSA because she believed that both parents had an obligation to pay for the upkeep of their children. They could divorce or separate from each other, but they could not divorce their children. It is the responsibility of the Government to demonstrate that, in their desire to save money running a child maintenance service, they have not reduced the incentive on non-resident parents to take responsibility for their children and reduce the incomes of their children as a consequence. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance to the Committee on this matter.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Sherlock, for their questions. I will try to offer reassurance and some responses.

Both noble Baronesses mentioned the issue of arrears. The aim of this compliance opportunity is to test behaviour. Once the compliance opportunity has been either passed or not passed, if the case moves on to direct pay, the parents will be able to agree among themselves how to deal with the arrears; if the compliance opportunity is failed, it is clear that we will need the collect and pay service to collect arrears as well. We are moving the segment 5 cases on to the new scheme before the arrears have been cleansed, so the arrears relating to such cases will still be being assessed and cleansed in order to be accurate while the parents are moved on to the 2012 scheme.

We are not offering the compliance opportunity on the previous scheme, as the previous Government originally suggested, partly because that would mean that we would be offering every parent the compliance opportunity, while not all parents will transfer to the 2012 scheme. From an efficiency point of view, that would not be optimal. Also, the cost of upgrading the old IT systems and the amendments that would need to be made to them to accommodate the compliance opportunity on the old system would be significant, so moving everyone on to the 2012 scheme is much more efficient and cost-effective from the taxpayer or funding perspective. We will also focus on those parents who will use the 2012 scheme rather than include all those who may have no intention of doing so.

I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has no objection in principle to these changes. I will just refer to her question of clarification about the RDOs and the LSDOs, which I specifically tried to answer in the last part of my opening speech. It is not a policy change; this is merely to try to ensure beyond doubt that there is the ability to collect not just the maintenance and the arrears on the 2012 scheme but the fees and charges that are associated with the 2012 scheme. Obviously, I apologise if that was not clear, but I hope that I have now made it clear.

The 2012 scheme will still be statutory. If people are on the 2012 scheme, it is no longer merely a voluntary scheme—they will have paid their fee to be on it and it will be statutory.

As regards the tools for enforcement for self-employed people, which is an important issue, the vast majority of cases have earnings, but for those where there is self-employment the compliance opportunity will consist of allowing the non-resident parent to pay 100%, rather than 50%, by a non-enforced method. However, after any payment is missed, the usual enforcement action will be taken. Part of the issue here is that we are moving people on to the 2012 scheme—it is not reactive, where they have requested to come across. As I understand it, we are trying to make sure, in response to stakeholder representations, that we do not impose collection charges before giving people at least some chance to prove that they can be trusted to make the payments reliably.

On the question of the numbers and the timings, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, requested, given the range of data that the noble Baroness has asked for, I will write to her to confirm these points.

As regards the collection of arrears and why the compliance opportunity does not include payment towards the legacy arrears, as I have said, this compliance opportunity is primarily a measure of behaviour and is designed to give the non-resident parent the chance to show that they can proactively manage their child maintenance obligations. This is based on the belief that, the more parents we can encourage to agree among themselves arrangements such as maintenance, the better this is in the interests of the children.

So it is not a question of trying to force people, or cajole them against their will, with no purpose. The purpose of the exercise is to try to encourage more parents not to rely on a statutory scheme to enforce the collection of child maintenance but to have the ability to agree among themselves, while obviously, as the noble Baroness says, giving them this behavioural nudge and indeed the financial incentive to do more to come together, in the interests of their children, to arrange child maintenance. The noble Baroness is right that the Government are committed to this scheme in the interests of the children. That is the overriding and most important element of our efforts in this area.

I was asked how successful the new scheme is. It is too early to provide that analysis, but we will be completing the 30-month review by the end of 2016, and we are currently testing, assessing and investigating what is happening on the scheme. We have commissioned research that is being undertaken to identify the kinds of questions that the noble Baroness has rightly asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, also asked for that assurance. I assure both noble Baronesses that we are investigating how the system is working and what is happening to the families who do not come across to the 2012 scheme, as well as what is happening to the families who do. However, it is early days.

On the question of the number of cases that are coming across, the migration of cases on to the 2012 scheme is being very carefully managed and assessed. Cases do not move over in large numbers until we are satisfied that the particular segment that is being moved over is doing so successfully. That is really important, given the experiences that we had with previous schemes, where there was perhaps a little too much hurry in managing large numbers of cases without ensuring that all the underlying systems and processes were in place to make sure that they would be handled successfully.

That is where we currently are. We are moving across and, so far as we can tell, the programme is going very successfully. It is being carefully handled and managed. We are also ensuring, as much as we can, that the order in which we are transferring cases across also helps to ensure that those who move on to the 2012 scheme are likely to have a more positive experience. That certainly seems to be the case: the number of complaints and queries is much lower than we might have expected.

The Child Maintenance Options service seems to be helping families to come together in the interests of their children and to understand more what needs to happen in order for them to be able to make a successful agreement. Child Maintenance Options has a calculator to help parents to work out how much maintenance needs to be paid; previously, they would often have been unaware of that, or would have had to have gone to court or have gone through some other procedure in order to assess it, but they can now do that themselves. Two out of three parents using the new Child Maintenance Service are already opting not to rely on the state to collect and pay maintenance on their behalf, so again the new system’s aim of significantly reducing the numbers of parents for whose child maintenance the state is responsible seems to be being achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock]

I thank the Minister for answering some of my questions but I confess to disappointment that she was not able to provide any figures at all, given that I gave her office a few hours’ notice that I would be asking for that information, which ought to be in the public domain. However, I shall look forward to the letter expressing the figures in detail.

There are two questions which either the Minister did not answer or I expressed poorly—I take full responsibility for her answering a different question from the one I asked. The first question was on the timing of the compliance opportunity. I was not trying to ask her—I apologise if I did—why she was not doing the compliance opportunity on the existing scheme, as opposed to the CMS. What I was asking was: why did the Government not delay the compliance opportunity until the arrears had been moved across as well as the ongoing maintenance, so that the compliance opportunity could then be done on the entire liability of both ongoing maintenance and arrears? She said that it was testing behaviour, but that tests only the willingness to pay a small amount of that, and the arrears may be significant.

As to the second question, I did not quite understand what the Minister said about why the Government did not want to use the compliance tools available to them on self-employed non-resident parents. What is the reason for assuming that they do not need enforcement in the way that employed parents do? She could, I presume, use deduction orders as they are used now. She did not explain why that would not be the case.

[Baroness Altmann]

I will try to be a little more forthcoming with some figures, but, as I say, I will write to the noble Baroness with a more detailed reply. So far, 700,000 to 800,000 segment 3 and 4 cases have been moved across. When all cases are finished, there will be 800,000 to 900,000 cases expected to come over on to the 2012 scheme. I apologise to the noble Baroness that I may have omitted to answer the two specific questions that she asked me. It is not that she was not clear; it is that I was unable to keep up with all the questions.

The timing of the compliance opportunity is partly to ensure that we can successfully complete the migration of the old cases on to the new system in time to be able to close the existing IT systems before they run out of their usable life. There is a timing issue of requiring to get on with the compliance opportunity for segment 5 so that we can meet the end deadline for closing the 1993 and 2003 IT systems without incurring significant extra cost. If we were to delay until all the arrears had been cleansed on the old system, that might well take us beyond the period. By moving segment 5 across slowly now, we are trying to test how this compliance opportunity is working in a small number of cases, as I described earlier, and how the new system is working for those cases before we ramp up with these significant additional thousands of cases that still need to come across and meet the end deadline. This migration and the new system are being very carefully managed. It is a massive undertaking. We know the problems we have had with IT systems in the past, and we do not want those to happen with the new system.

Also, we would have had to either let everyone have direct pay or charge everyone for their ongoing maintenance. That is why we have not used the tools for the self-employed people. We are giving them the opportunity that we believe we have to give them. We cannot collect arrears until they have not paid. As I understand it, the deduction orders and the lump sum deduction orders will help us collect arrears but we cannot consider arrears from the old scheme as arrears in the new scheme, so we would either have to deem all the self-employed as unreliable payers, and therefore we could then enforce collection and charges, or give them the opportunity to prove that they are unreliable before we then take the fees for the collection and charges.

If further clarification is required, I will write to the noble Baroness. However, as I understand it, those are the bare bones of the issue. We can expand on that.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for their constructive approach to today’s proceedings. This Government are committed to ensuring that those parents who choose to apply to the statutory 2012 child maintenance scheme benefit from a successful and stable arrangement for payments in the interests of their children. Introducing a compliance opportunity will ensure that non-resident parents with a history of non-compliance should not access the direct pay service unless they have demonstrated a change of behaviour. This aims to help parents with care have confidence that their new arrangement will suit their circumstances and work in the best interests of supporting their children. I commend this instrument to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.