Automatic Enrolment (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, when auto-enrolment was introduced by legislation in 2008, and subsequently amended in 2012 to include seafarers and offshore workers—albeit subject to a sunset provision—I was Chief Whip and very much aware of the long route that we travelled towards achieving cross-party support for all the provisions to improve pension saving in the UK by encouraging people to contribute towards a pension. As ever, however, there was of course careful scrutiny of the Bill and the subsequent regulations throughout, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, both of whom are speaking in today’s debate.

I welcome the orders before the virtual House today. I notice that my screen has gone blank, but I am hoping that others can view what is going on.

I have a couple of questions for clarification of the proposals. At paragraphs 10.2 and 10.4, the Explanatory Memorandum refers to concerns raised by stakeholders about the drafting of the “ordinarily working” test, and states that they wanted it to be made more specific for seafarers and offshore workers. What definition was proposed by those stakeholders, and why did the Government decide that it would weaken the compliance regime and undermine the policy intention?

The total net equivalent annual direct cost to business is estimated at £22 million. Paragraph 12.1 of the memorandum makes it clear that part of that financial impact falls upon employers in the charity and voluntary sector. I appreciate what the Minister has already said about the assistance given to employers during the pandemic, but clearly at some stage that assistance will come to an end and there will be a financial impact on charities and the voluntary sector. I therefore ask: which employers of eligible seafarers and offshore workers fall within the category of being charities and voluntary bodies? For example, are we talking about organisations such as the RNLI, Mercy Ships or perhaps Greenpeace?

I recognise, as others have, that the impact of Covid-19 on the economy may cause employees to question the value of long-term savings and perhaps to be more prepared to opt out of pension schemes, having been auto-enrolled. I hope, however, that all employees will recognise the long-term benefits of pension savings.

Scotland: Underoccupancy Charge

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, we have reached 30 minutes.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, this is a procedural matter, which is why I have leapt to my feet in advance of my noble friend Lady Stowell. I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 1

Moved by

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, the amendment is boring to most because it deals with pensions issues, but important to some because it deals with what happens to their loved ones once they have gone.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is being very courteous in hesitating a while. If I intervene for long enough, that may have the effect of clearing the Chamber almost altogether, and then we will have a little peace and quiet for him to present his amendment.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, this amendment is about addressing an inequality in pensions in relation to survivor benefits that will affect a small number of people in a very unfair way.

Let me try to explain. The Equality Act allows occupational pension providers to ignore the service and contributions of gay employees prior to 2005 when it comes to paying out survivor benefits to civil partners. This stemmed from an original exemption in the Civil Partnership Act that I argued against at that time. This Bill would see the same thing happen to same-sex spouses.

I will say from the outset that the majority of occupational pension schemes have ignored this provision and pay out fully to survivors. They do this because they believe it to be fair and I recognise that and thank them for it. However, there are those that do not. Their reason is mostly cost. This is odd, as the Office for National Statistics calculates that it would cost only £18 million to the private sector.

In a past career, I was the publisher of a magazine with the snappy title of Pensions. In case your Lordships are interested, I also published Planned Savings, Insurance Age, The Savings Market and a statistical compendium called Rateguide. So I am pretty confident that no pension provider can accurately predict how many individuals within a pension scheme will be gay, how many will marry under this Bill when it becomes law or become civil partners and how many will outlive their partners, husbands or wives by a significant period. I am also pretty confident that for the one-third of schemes that do not pay out, the actuaries who run the numbers probably have already built in the additional costs associated with this amendment. Pensions actuaries—and I have met many of them—deal constantly in uncertainties around the length of life, the possibility of illness, the number of scheme members who are likely to marry and many more issues. Given that two-thirds of schemes already do, I do not understand why we cannot insist that the rest treat same-sex couples who marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples who marry. They have all paid in the same pension contributions.

I know from the other place that the Government think that this is a matter for the schemes themselves. However, in debating amendment after amendment we have discussed the rights of those who disagree with same-sex marriages to be able to do so, and we have resisted giving public servants the right to pick and choose what services they will give to whom based upon their deeply held beliefs. That is effectively what we would be doing here with employers and pension scheme trustees—we would be allowing pension fund trustees who genuinely believe same-sex marriage to be wrong to have the right to create two classes of spouses in their schemes. This legislation would permit it.

If we were not dealing with pensions, which are boring and complicated, but some other form of service, we would not allow this to happen. The cost to the Government is nothing. These changes were made for the public sector in 2004. I ask the Minister not to let the subject matter perpetuate an injustice into this Bill that is completely unnecessary. It is not a huge issue—£18 million does not set the world alight, but it is a kindness that we can give to a few people at the most difficult time in their life. I cannot demand that the noble Baroness do something about it; I can only ask, with the sincerity of those who have asked me to take up this issue, to take it away and see if we can do something about it. We should have solved this issue in 2004. The party opposite probably should have done so in 2010. People have waited far too long for the compassion that they deserve. I hope that we might find that in this Bill. I beg to move.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, who gave the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the individual right to shout from a sedentary position about whether or not one small matter in relation to the Companion has been dealt with? Surely, shouting from a sedentary position is not allowed?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, this House is self-regulating, which also means that it conducts itself with self-restraint and follows the guidance in the Companion. I am sure that all noble Lords around the House are keen to do that. It is a good idea to discuss with our Chief Whips how that is best achieved. I know that the Opposition Chief Whip has recently sent to his own Back-Benchers what I consider to be a very helpful guide about what constitutes good behaviour. We should reflect on that. Without pointing fingers, we all should behave in ways that we feel are not becoming of this place. We all want to ensure that we do our job. After all, most people here say that for most of the time we try to do it well.

Report received.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, a considerable number of Members of this House are leaving, but there are still some staying behind to take part who would like to listen to the Minister, who is trying to present the opening of this debate. I should be grateful if Peers leaving could do so quietly.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

Sport

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 8th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Billingham]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was ready to speak on the past two occasions and gave way. We will have the opportunity to hear from the opposition Front Bench very shortly after his question.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I apologise for the earlier false start. In declaring my interest as the outgoing chairman of the British Olympic Association, may I thank noble Lords from all sides of this House for their consistent support for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games since we first debated them some seven years ago?

The challenge is now to turn inspiration into participation. Does the Minister agree that central to this objective is a priority focus on school sport and the establishment of new links between clubs, volunteers, governing bodies, primary, secondary and, indeed, independent schools?

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests—which are in the Register—as a former non-executive director of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and a former chief executive of One Parent Families. I feel that I need to place on the record, irrespective of what the amendments’ movers decide to do, a response to the argument that the Minister has made today.

This House voted decisively in favour of a previous Motion; indeed, as we left the Chamber that day, I heard a Conservative Peer express a complaint to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that he just had stolen his record for the biggest ever defeat inflicted on the Government. It was a very big defeat indeed. So what has changed? The Minister has told us, first, that single parents get a lot of money from the state so it is not unreasonable to expect them to pay to use the CSA; secondly, that when the CSA was introduced, all the money went to the Treasury, whereas it now goes to the children, so the situation is different and parents should pay for it; and, finally, that charging is needed to deter parents from using the CSA when they can perfectly well make their own arrangements.

Allow me briefly to pick off each of those arguments. In the first case, yes, it is true that many lone parents get lots of money from the state. However, could the Minister tell the House what proportion of those lone parents who use the CSA are on out-of-work benefits? The briefing that I received from Gingerbread told me that the figure is 30 per cent, so 70 per cent of lone parents using the CSA are in fact in work. How does the distribution of that work? Are some people getting most of the money from the state and another in-work, poor, low-paid, low-income group making the payments? They may be a large group, but they may not be the same people.

Secondly, it is worth saying that when the CSA was introduced, the Government of the day made a decision that if somebody was on benefit, all the money would go directly to the state. However, it is my understanding that child maintenance has always been ignored for tax credits purposes and that a similar rule was introduced for out-of-work benefits in 2008. So there is a very clear, established principle that out-of-work benefit should not be treated in the same way, and the very good reason for that was that it was a dual measure to tackle poverty and encourage work.

Finally, it is argued that charging is needed to deter lone parents from using the CSA when they could perfectly well make their own arrangements. The problem is that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is targeted specifically at those lone parents who cannot make those arrangements because their former partner will not co-operate. It is designed precisely for those people who are not able to do the very thing that the Minister wants them to do. That leaves a position of rather rough justice. Those people must pay the price to enable the Minister to encourage other people to make their own arrangements when they can.

I am a new girl around here and do not even pretend to understand how financial privilege works—having listened to some of today’s debate, I am frankly none the wiser. But the one thing that I do know about is the amount of money involved. The Minister has said that he would expect to save only between £50 million and £100 million over a period which I am afraid I did not write down quickly enough. I would be grateful if he could explain to us what he thinks he will bring in on a recurrent basis in a year. Will he also tell us what savings the Government expect to make in their running costs as a result of deterring parents from the system in the first place? This is very important, because there is a nasty suspicion out there, as I seem to recall mentioning in Committee, that the Government’s main objective is not to raise revenue from parents but to save money by driving people out of the system. Let us suppose that that were to work; let us suppose that the effect were that far fewer people used the CSA. If a significant number of those make no arrangements at all, is there not a broader cost to society? Is there not a moral hazard question? Have we not moved into a position which the CSA was designed to address? Are we saying to people, “I’m sorry, you may leave your partner, but you may not leave your children and the state expects you to pay up”? Is there not a price to that, too?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt at this point and it is extremely unusual to do so. I do so with no hostile intent. There has been extremely generous use of time today on the important subject of the Welfare Reform Bill, on which some progress has been made. The generous time taken by the House on this matter, when we knew that the Scotland Bill had been programmed to start after it, has put those who have been waiting some time for the Scotland Bill in some difficulty. I know that the whole House will apologise to colleagues who have been waiting.

I have had a discussion in usual channels and it has been thought a better way of treating those who are awaiting the Scotland Bill to announce now that it would be better if the business on Scotland did not proceed this evening but continued as scheduled on Tuesday 28 February. Therefore, once the business on the Welfare Reform Bill has concluded, the House will rise. I know that, with the help of the Clerk of Parliaments, that information will be put on the annunciator. I apologise again for intervening at this stage.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am sure that is for the convenience of the House and I am grateful to my noble friend for making that clear. I could see the long faces on some of my Scottish colleagues getting longer by the moment. It is only fair to them that I apologise to them, because I have an interest in the Scotland Bill as well. However, I am sure it will wait until next Tuesday.

At this time of night I want to make a suggestion rather than a speech. Before I do that, I will say that I agree with the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the money. I was a little dismayed at the way my noble friend opened this debate, because dealing with quantums of money and global amounts does not make an awful lot of sense unless there is some context. I much prefer to look at percentage shares of the benefit spend over time, and look at trends, rather than global amounts, because they sound like colossal sums of money. I agree with the noble Baroness on that point. It does not help the debate, because any of us who have been studying these things know that many single parents struggle on low incomes.

That point has been made and I will not pursue it, but I want also to make clear that in terms of the budget impact—which we have seen and which was referred to a moment ago—only 20 per cent of the cuts have attached themselves to household domestic spending and income. That will get worse. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has been quoted, has done some valuable modelling work that suggests there is going to be downward pressure on household incomes in single-parent families in future. That has to be borne in mind. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment on the ultimate rollout of universal credit from 2013, as I read it, shows that 500,000 working single-parent households will have a lower entitlement under universal credit. It is wrong to say that we are dealing with a category of rich people. There is a mixture, which I want to come on to in a minute in the main question I want to ask.

I have always been against charging. I was against it when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was considering it. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, we spent many a happy hour trying to resist charging, simply on the basis that it is a disincentive. I still believe that is likely to be the case. All developed western European nations now have various iterations of state-sponsored collection and enforcement services. We should—and will—have a new one, and one that will actually be cheaper as we will be using HMRC data. As my noble friend said, the service will be better and more efficient. There will be annual reviews and the data will be cleaned up as people are asked to come off the existing system and reapply—although that will be a much bigger undertaking than I think people imagine, and I hope that the department is prepared for that. However, it will be a cheaper and better service—£93 million cheaper, if my memory serves in respect of the impact assessment statement and other bits of information. It is important that we cherish the role that it plays and the impact that it has on lower-income families.

Looking at the figures, there are two dimensions to this—the low-income one and the high-income one. I remember an exchange when we last discussed this and have been reflecting on it since. The Government’s position is absolutely arguable for those who have an income of £50 or more per week via Child Support Agency maintenance. Twenty-two per cent of the case load gets 50 per cent or more, per week, of the maintenance delivered through the CSA. That is a big amount of money and gives us some options. Those kinds of families and households have much more flexibility in terms of options and choices. In those circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to try to affect behaviour. The point I want to make is that 40 per cent of single parents receiving maintenance via the CSA receive less than £10 per week.

It is that category of transfer payment recipients that I am really concerned about. They do not have any options; they are in a very difficult place. The Government’s attempt to get behavioural change is much harder to argue reasonably in that context. I support the amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but if we are stuck with charges and are reviewing them in 13 months’ time, would the Minister look urgently and robustly at the case for variation in the charges? If somebody is getting £10 per week, 12 per cent of that is quite a load of cash. If there were some way of getting the £75 million that the Government believe they need to fund the system going forward from fees, then they could do that by taking a little bit more out of households and families with a better take and a better return from the CSA than those who are at the bottom of the income distribution pile. If some thought could be given to that—and it is a bit of an ask at this time of night to get a reaction to that idea without notice—or even if the Minister were prepared to say that he would take it away and consider it in the course of the review, I would be happier about the results of the debate. If the noble and learned Baroness is thinking of taking her case to a vote—and that would also be a difficult ask at this time of night—her case has merit and I would support it. If we are stuck with charges, however, we should be looking at variations to try to cushion the effects on some of the low-income households that I think will suffer as a result of the imposition of these charges as currently cast.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think that everybody is trying to be very constructive tonight. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is ready to move her amendment. It may help the House if I indicate that there is an agreement that we need to be swift to ensure that the House concludes quickly. Therefore, I wonder if the noble Baroness on the Woolsack, the Deputy Chairman, might call Amendment 62ZA. That will, I hope, then be the last amendment and be concluded quite briefly.

Clause 100 : Power to require consideration of revision before appeal

Amendment 62ZA

Moved by

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, like Amendment 50 debated last week, this amendment is designed to minimise the adverse effects likely to result from the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, in order to be of assistance to the noble Baroness, who is seeking to move a very important amendment, may I suggest that those leaving the Chamber do not pass in front of speakers? That is not the habit of this House. May they please leave the Chamber by another route, so that we may hear from the noble Baroness?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Thank you.

The amendment is about accountability. Considerable concern was raised in Grand Committee about the accountability of local authorities for the moneys devolved to them when the discretionary Social Fund is abolished. The amendment has been drafted with the help of Family Action, to which I am grateful, so as to put into effect the recommendation of the Communities and Local Government Committee report Localisation issues in welfare reform. While the CLG Committee accepted the Government’s case against ring-fencing the money, its report said that this,

“may carry some risks at a time of difficult financial circumstances for councils”.

The committee therefore recommended that,

“central government identifies clearly the amounts that are being allocated to local authorities, and collects information about their use, until the new arrangements have bedded in—we suggest a period of five years. … This would provide some reassurance about the effectiveness of the new system in helping those in need”.

Ministers have been giving out mixed messages on this issue. I hope that means that they are genuinely trying to find a way of answering the concerns about lack of accountability that have been raised in a number of quarters. One ministerial response has been to rely on the ballot box, even though the people affected are those least likely to vote, and also to contend that it is sufficient to set out the purpose of the funding in a settlement letter.

However, a chink of light emerged in the Government’s response to the call for evidence, when they said that the settlement letter, mentioned last week by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley,

“may be supplemented with a requirement to report on how the funding has been used”.

The CLG Committee observed:

“This would fall some way short of the accountability mechanisms suggested by some stakeholders”.

Nevertheless, if the Minister now committed the Government to imposing such a requirement, we would be satisfied.

Last week, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke about supplementing the planned review of a cross-section of local authorities in order to collect more information on how the money is spent. While I welcome the spirit in which this very small concession was offered, I fear that it falls short, not just of what we believe is necessary but of what the Government themselves hinted at in their response to the committee’s evidence.

We are still awaiting an answer to some astute questioning in Grand Committee from the noble Lord, Lord German, about how the Government will meet their obligations of stewardship for the money allocated to local authorities in England. As the noble Lord stated very powerfully, this is a question of accountability to Parliament. How can such accountability be ensured if local authorities are not required to report on how they spend the money allocated to them?

The purpose of Amendment 50ZB is to allay the fears voiced by voluntary organisations such as Family Action, Women’s Aid and Platform 51 that local authorities might impose a local or residence condition as a way of rationing assistance when allocating social housing. Again, I am grateful to Family Action for help with drafting this amendment. Given the pressures on local authorities, it is quite conceivable that some at least might seek to impose a local connection test—that is, confine help to people who already have a local connection with the area. In Committee, I tabled a general amendment to prevent such a test. This amendment is drafted more tightly to ensure that such a test is not applied to people fleeing domestic violence—or, more accurately, people who have fled domestic violence—young people leaving local authority care, people who are homeless or who have been homeless within the previous 12 months and people leaving institutional residential care such as a hospital, prison or a young offenders’ institution. In other words, this amendment is designed to safeguard the interests of groups who are likely not to have a local connection.

As the voluntary sector consortium headed by Family Action points out,

“These groups of people are much less likely than others to be able to demonstrate local connection. Without crucial assistance from a Community Care Grant to buy essential items such as cooking equipment and bedding, they may struggle to set up and maintain a home. This puts them at risk of reoffending or moving back into temporary or institutional accommodation, which is far more costly and means they lose their newly-found independence”.

The consortium is particularly concerned that, without a clear legal prohibition on requiring a local residence connection, women who have experienced domestic violence will be discouraged from moving elsewhere to flee their violent partner, or will return to their partner because they are unable to provide basic household items such as a cooker to prepare cheap healthy food for themselves and their children. The consortium’s concerns were echoed in the impact report published last week by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, which looked at the impact of the legislation in relation to children’s rights. When questioned on this matter in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State assured Members that local authorities had a moral duty. Welcome as this recognition is, I fear that if a woman who has fled domestic violence or an ex-prisoner cites a moral duty to their local authority they will not get very far. Surely if the Government believe that a moral duty holds, they should translate it into a statutory duty.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, did not address these issues in Committee but kindly wrote to me afterwards. However, he simply set out in his letter the local connection provisions on homelessness contained in the Housing Act 1996. I shall not spell those out now, but they protect a person from being denied any assistance anywhere because of a lack of local connection. If the Minister is saying that the same rule will apply here, then I welcome it, but does it not need to be written into the legislation? As I understand it, the Housing Act 1996 does not apply to the legislation we are discussing here. If the Minister were to offer to bring forward his own amendment at Third Reading to give effect to the Housing Act provisions on local connection, I would happily withdraw the amendment as unnecessary. As an absolute minimum, can the Minister assure the House that the settlement letter will spell out that local authorities should follow the same provisions as in the housing legislation?

It seems to me that the aims of these two amendments are not that far from what the Government themselves wish to achieve. I hope therefore that the Minister might be willing either to accept them or to agree to bring forward his own amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.