Front-loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL]
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes any detail that could signal how arrangements for varying the rates should be made.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak to Amendments 1 and 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who is unavoidably detained today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for helpful discussions and advance notice of the specific questions that her amendments seek to address. I hope that we can make the most of our Committee on this Bill. I am also grateful for the letter from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury outlining various concerns around this proposal.
Amendment 1 seeks to address the legislative difficulties that the Treasury has highlighted, as it would simply leave out the words “on a sliding scale”, which introduced unworkable complexity into the Bill and would potentially require HMRC to make very regular changes to the child benefit rates available to claimants. As the Treasury said, this would be challenging to operationalise and potentially expensive for taxpayers. This amendment would also hopefully answer some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, around adding complexity for parents into the child benefit system.
With Amendment 1, the Front-loaded Child Benefit Bill would be deliberately simple and merely provide the legislative lever or framework around which the Government can then build detailed policy. They would of course be aided in this respect by the many respected think tanks that have published reports providing solutions to the cost of living crisis that we know is facing many families, going beyond giving money and aiming to help improve choice and encourage responsibility.
My noble friend Lord Farmer explained at Second Reading that the rationale is to increase choice for parents in how they manage childcare in the early years. We have all benefited from the research and information about the importance of those early years and the foundations that are laid at that time. During those first two or three years, many parents would like to care for their children themselves but face a considerable and increasingly insurmountable sacrifice of income to do so. Receiving the same flat rate of child benefit throughout childhood no longer fits with the financial realities of many families.
Interestingly, since the Second Reading debate in October, other think tanks such as Civitas have proposed a family support benefit, which would roll out £16 billion of government child benefit and childcare expenditure into a front-loaded payment. In August, the Policy Exchange think tank made a similar recommendation for what it termed a “baby boost” allowance for parents of children aged two and under, which would double child benefit and be funded by reallocating the significant underspend on tax-free childcare. It is that kind of thinking that this Bill is part of in terms of renewing the financial framework for families in the early years. Those costed proposals are important, because one criticism of the Bill was the upfront additional burden on His Majesty’s Treasury from a higher rate in the early years, even if the measure was ultimately cost-neutral, as there could be a correspondingly lower rate in later childhood. This reform of child benefit would be part of a much-needed redesign of financial support.
I heard at Second Reading what other noble Lords said around the expense of teenagers. No one is pretending that that is not also an expensive time, but parents are usually much less restricted in terms of the hours that they can work when their children are at school and childcare is much easier. That is also reflected in the fact that the Government give disadvantaged two year-olds, three year-olds and four year-olds all the hours that they do, usually free. Additionally, the age at which the benefit might taper off would be an age at which certain children find that they want to add to the family household income themselves.
There are advantages to this front-loaded child benefit being part of what we see as a greater overhaul of the system of financial support. However, that aspect of any new passage would need primary legislation, which is why this Bill has been brought forward. With the removal of the sliding scale, it is hopefully a very simple framework into which any Government could fit any detailed policy proposals.
Amendment 3 would insert a new clause to enable the Secretary of State to set different rates at which parents could choose to be paid in the early years and later in childhood. Importantly, that amendment would put all the policy implementation detail into the hands of Ministers to craft, so that it can be more easily changed as circumstances change than if it was in primary legislation. This would enable the front-loaded child benefit to be part of a suite of reforms benefiting parents in the early years. The second amendment makes that important change: it would no longer be up to parents to request a particular proportion, but the Government would set within the framework, for example, what proportion could be drawn down and within what age range of the children, et cetera.
As originally drafted, the Bill would have allowed the child benefit claimant to request the front-loaded payments without details of what the new rates would be and how they could be discounted in a child’s later life. That was not my noble friend’s intention, so that change in who has control would come through Amendment 3, and the delegated powers would be with the Government to develop the front-loaded system.
Briefly, I believe there is one point that the noble Baroness has raised which is not covered by the amendments. It is her query about why the Bill includes “without prejudice” in Clause 1(1B). The only reason that bit is there is as kitchen-sink legislation, just to make sure. Obviously, the provision referred to means that child benefit can never be lowered. We wanted to make it crystal clear now that even if you ended up with a group of parents claiming flat rate for the entirety of a child’s life, and then a group doing front-loaded plus decrease, none of those rates could be lowered. We are just kitchen-sinking it to make sure it does not provide any wiggle room for a future Government to say, “We’re raising child benefit, but those discounted years and the old years do not get the same percentage increase.” That is why the provision is there; it is without prejudice to that, so it would mean there could be no change to that fundamental principle—basically, that child benefit never goes down.
I hope that has clarified those questions for the noble Baroness and I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and introducing the amendments in his name. I shall speak to Amendments 2, 4 and 5 in my name. Having suggested to the usual channels that we have a single group, I will cover everything in one speech, so it may be slightly longer than normal. These are all probing amendments, which I have tabled simply to allow us to explore how the proposal to front-load child benefit would work. I would like to look at three sets of issues.
First off, there is the value of child benefit paid up front. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, argued—and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, agreed—that the aim of the Bill is to direct more money to parents in the early years to allow them to make different choices. For that to work, it would need to be enough to make a difference but that is going to be quite hard. Child Poverty Action Group research shows that last year the additional basic cost of a child from birth to age 18 was over £76,000 for a couple family, of which child benefit covers about 22%. If you add in housing and childcare costs, the figure rises to over £160,000. The figure for single-parent families is higher still, so how much extra could they get?
Amendment 3 would leave the framing of options to the Government, as we have heard, so my first question is therefore for the Minister. Could the child benefit computer cope with the level of complexity this would introduce? It is a long time since I was a Treasury spad, but my memories of it are such that it made me wonder: when Ministers decided to withdraw child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers, was there perhaps a reason they used the tax system, rather than deciding to means-test it in the more conventional way?
I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge: would the Bill as amended allow Ministers to choose any combination of sums? Could a choice be to have 95% of lifetime child benefit in year 1 and the other 5% over the rest of a child’s childhood, or vice versa? More likely, I imagine, is the Policy Exchange model, to which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, referred at Second Reading. That proposed that half the total entitlement to child benefit should be available during the first three years of a child’s life, and the other half spread over the remaining years of entitlement.
The Bill provides, and the noble Baroness has confirmed, that the intent is that the amount payable over a child’s life would be the same, whichever path was chosen. My Amendment 2 says that it should be the same in real terms, which is there to allow me to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge: is it the intention that front-loaded child benefit would be paid at nominal value—in other words, at today’s child benefit rates—or would some account be taken of the impact of inflation and change in purchasing power over the years?
Because I am sad, I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, using the example of a family with two children who took the Policy Exchange model at the start of this financial year. I confess that I made the children twins to make the sums easier. If the money is paid out at nominal value—that is, today’s child benefit rates—I estimate that the total amount paid over 16 years would be £30,160.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Farmer, and my noble friend Lady Berridge, for bringing these amendments in Committee on his behalf. I acknowledge the dedication they have both shown to this issue. As my noble friend knows, the Government wholeheartedly share her ambition to support parents in caring for their children. Recently, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has confirmed that, subject to parliamentary approval, child benefit payments will increase in line with the September rate of inflation in 2023.
Like my noble friend, the Government are committed to supporting parents, regardless of whether they choose to leave the workforce in order to carry out childcare duties or remain in the workforce. Details of the UK’s generous parental pay and leave policies were set out at Second Reading. Moreover, it has recently been confirmed that, subject to parliamentary approval, statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance, paternity pay and shared parental pay will all also be uprated in line with September’s inflation in April 2023. For parents who wish to return to the workforce, the Government offer a range of support with childcare costs. I will not go into the details of these policies, which were described at Second Reading. However, the Government do consider these to be appropriate and robust measures to support families with childcare costs. These initiatives also ensure that families on the lowest incomes receive additional support.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I do not know exactly why the Government put the child benefit tax charge through the tax system, but I can tell her that the child benefit system is not designed to front-load child benefit payments in the way the Bill intends. It would involve a complex change to the IT system, which would include significant costs for both the IT system and upskilling staff—and we all know the risks around significant IT upgrades and the delays that can occur.
On the noble Baroness’s other questions, current legislation gives His Majesty’s Treasury the power to prescribe different rates of child benefit for different cases. For example, to date that power has been exercised to prescribe different rates, according to whether payments are being made in respect of the first child or subsequent children. Full legal analysis would be needed to determine whether current legislation allows for different rates to be prescribed for different patterns of parenting, but it would not be possible under the current system to prescribe different rates or make child benefit conditional on different parenting behaviours, as the noble Baroness set out. I hope that answers her questions.
Returning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Farmer, as I say, the Government set out our full position at Second Reading on why we cannot support the Bill as a whole. In addition to the previously raised issues, I will add a few further points worth considering in relation to these proposals. First, the current child benefit system already takes into account the higher costs that families face when they first have children, hence the higher rate paid for the eldest or only child.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, outlined, a parent’s circumstances may change over time, affecting their eligibility for child benefit payments. This may occur for many reasons. For example, a child may leave full-time non-advanced education, or a parent may lose custody of a child. A parent’s income may also increase, such that they become liable for the high-income child benefit charge. If they have chosen to front-load their child benefit payments but become ineligible or opt out in later years, that could affect the fiscal neutrality of this measure. Furthermore, different individuals may claim child benefit in respect of the same child but for different periods of time. The proposals in the Bill would mean that new claimants could be affected or bound by the decisions of the previous claimant. This could be particularly problematic in cases where separated parents are already in conflict over who should claim child benefit.
Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also noted, the Government currently review the rates of child benefit annually in light of inflation, helping families with rising costs. However, the lack of certainty around how child benefit rates will change in future means that it is not possible to ascertain what an appropriate rate for front-loaded payments would be.
I apologise; I said I was turning to the amendments, but those are our objections to the Bill in principle. I now come to the amendments themselves. I acknowledge that the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Farmer would make the Bill more workable for the Government. Amendment 1 would mean that the Bill no longer constrains the Government in setting up a system that specifically front-loads payments on a so-called sliding scale. Instead, as set out in Amendment 3, the Government would be given more flexibility to design such a system, which does not necessarily have to be on a sliding scale. Therefore, the Government have no objections to the amendments. The Bill would potentially need further tidying up to become fully workable, but we recognise that the amendments are a step in the right direction.
Nevertheless, although the Government remain committed to supporting families and children, it is for the reasons previously outlined at Second Reading, and the further points raised today, that the Government cannot support the Bill. I welcome the passion and commitment of both my noble friends in this area, and I am sure that they will continue to press the Government on these important issues. The Government will continue to listen to what they, and all noble Lords, have to say on family policy in the future.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made, and I hope to briefly answer the points raised. I accept that the calculations are very detailed, even if they on the back of an envelope, and this is precisely why the Bill is in the framework that it is. The modelling and viewing of real-terms changes and nominal rates can be done by the Treasury—we are in this strange triangular relationship here as it is a Private Member’s Bill—so that the Government can do the policy work in advance and work out how we would cope with the change in inflation and purchasing power, and what would happen during those years. I cannot give the noble Baroness detailed answers, but this is precisely why the Bill is in the framework that it is.
The Government should commend themselves rather more on infrastructure. They have set up systems recently that have worked very well—including for vaccines and the EU settlement scheme—so it is possible to create that infrastructure, though I am mindful obviously of the cost. As to what we could give parents, budgets are so tight at the moment that families may want to choose front-loading.
On conditionality, it is not envisaged by the Bill that we would have any kind of sanction. I recognise that think tanks have suggested that, but, again, that is for the Government to work out in the policy detail on people who want to front-load. The noble Baroness has raised queries before about people understanding what they are doing, so there may be some requirement to make sure that they understand what the implications of taking the child benefit, or a proportion of it, in a front-loaded way are.
On legislation, whether it is an additional clause here or it is done under previous primary legislation, I would rely on the Delegated Powers Committee to say which is the best piece of legislation to use to enact these changes.
In many areas of a child’s life, those the child is living with and who have parental responsibility are making all kinds of decisions that affect the outcomes for that child. If they then move, the other parent or foster carer might say that they would not have made that decision. The reality here is that, as in other areas of life, decisions will be made that will affect the child in future.
Repaying money is not what is envisaged, but the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, inadvertently raises precisely the first case in which a parent might want to front-load benefits, which is where they sadly have a young child or baby who has a limited life expectancy. Why would you not want to enable that family to front-load their child benefit, bearing in mind the prognosis they have been given? I know that they are often entitled to other benefits and support, but they might also want to do that. That would be a laudable way of using the Bill.
I accept that it is a skeleton Bill. I accept the criticisms and comments made about our statutory instrument procedure, which allows debate but not the opportunity to vote down. However, this is a principle Bill, which would then enable the Government to construct the detailed policy. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
Baroness Berridge
“Regulations(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the rates from which people to whom child benefit is payable may choose to be paid, in accordance with section 1, and the arrangements for such choices being made and implemented. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) are to be made by statutory instrument.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause delegates powers to government to develop a front-loaded payment system.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the infamy with which the Central African Republic was known due to its brief, self-declared existence as an empire under Emperor Bokassa has been replaced by such anonymity that it is now known only to the tea-time audience of BBC1. “Central African Republic” is a frequent pointless answer on the popular quiz show of that name. I wish briefly to shine a spotlight on the Central African Republic, which even as a failed state remains one of the world’s donor orphans.
Despite the sacrifices of the French peacekeepers and the AU force over many months, even the capital Bangui has not been fully secured. On 25 May, three young Muslim men on their way to a reconciliation football match were set upon and publicly dismembered. A reprisal attack on 28 May on a Catholic church that was housing 8,000 internally displaced people saw the priest attacked in front of the congregation, grenades thrown and 15 people killed. Not surprisingly, a few days later a mosque was attacked. Whatever the UN might label this violence legally, it is clearly now of a religious nature. Not surprisingly 97% of the Muslim population in Bangui has fled, often assisted by peacekeeping forces so inadequate in number that evacuating populations under attack was their only option. Many of these people have gone to the more remote and less fertile north-eastern border region with Chad, and while the world has had its focus on Syria and South Sudan, the CAR has now been de facto partitioned on religious lines and the hatred and distrust among communities shocks even the most experienced aid workers who visit the nation. Sources now report that young Muslim men in the north-east with little to do but much anger are listening to or reading extremist messages on smartphones, and Hausa-speaking people from northern Nigeria are reported to be among their number. It is reported that, on Saturday 26 April 2014, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri called on all Muslims to provide military support to their brothers in the Central African Republic. This is increasingly a regional security crisis, and as the Lord’s Resistance Army area operates with impunity in the south-east of the Central African Republic, why would Boko Haram not think it could do the same?
The entire 4.8 million population of the CAR is affected. There are over a third of a million refugees in neighbouring countries and half a million internally displaced people. The UN fund remains chronically underfunded at just 31% of the $565 million needed. To its credit, the UK is the second-largest bilateral donor, but at a relatively modest £23 million. Healthcare is run by MSF, 75% of schools are shut, those that are open are run by NGOs and there is no judicial system or police. Although the UK is not the lead nation in the CAR, we are seen as a trusted neutral arbiter and there is much we can do. Will the Minister encourage the EU and the UN to devise a 10-year development plan for the CAR? Will he outline whether the UK will reassess its lack of ambassadorial presence in the CAR? The United States has recently announced its decision to appoint a special representative.
Elections are scheduled for February 2015, but the population has dispersed and the national archives have been destroyed. With no state infrastructure, there is no electoral register. With no security, people will not give their names to any official documentation. Would my noble friend the Minister please investigate whether the African Union or UN could send a team of electoral commission officials, especially from other African nations, to assess if holding an election is possible in the timescale envisaged?
However, there is a good news story in all of this: the close relationship and reconciliation work being done by the Catholic Archbishop of Bangui, the nation’s Imam, Imam Layama, and the leader of the evangelical churches, Reverend Guérékoyame-Gbangou. I was recently encouraged to learn of a trip by the UK Muslim charities fund and CAFOD, the Catholic charity, which went together to visit the nation. DfID must allocate more money to the CAR, but perhaps this could be done in the form of a fund for consortiums of aid agencies to bid for, which must include our own Catholic, Muslim and evangelical agencies. What better way to support the brave interfaith reconciliation work in the CAR than to send our aid through the same representatives? For every £1 we spend on this aid would then also be £1 spent on reconciliation. If the Christian community in the CAR gets its food aid from UK Muslim aid agencies, this will help to rebuild much-needed trust among the communities. The domestic splash-back would be some much-needed encouragement to UK Muslims at the moment.
Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Bill [HL]
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am also most surprised that in just over a year in your Lordships’ House this is the second time I find myself speaking on this issue—the first being on the Remembrance Sunday (Closure of Shops) Bill. However, it is also perhaps apt as in 1992 it was this issue, as was the case for my noble friend Lord Bates, that prompted my first political activity. I distinctly remember sitting at my desk one Sunday while at university, looking out of the window at business premises that were silent and dark, so I wrote to my parents’ MP, Alan Duncan, to request that Sundays be kept special.
Things are of course different now, so much so that I, as an occasional Sunday shopper, found on a recent holiday to the Isles of Lewis and Harris that Sundays were quite a culture shock. However, it is interesting to note that certain businesses, including the Entertainer chain of toyshops and the Reg Vardy car dealership in the north-east, do not open on Sundays: decisions motivated by the desire of the employers to give a day off to their employees, as well as the owners’ Christian faith. I do hope this to be a new trend.
Although I am completely unsporting—my gym membership is perhaps best characterised as a charitable donation to the gym rather than a purchasing of its services—I think that London hosting the Olympics and Paralympics is fantastic. Surprisingly, I have even found myself a trustee of an Olympic-related charity, More Than Gold. Britain won the bid to hold the Games on 6 July 2005—a never to be forgotten date as it was the day before the 7/7 bombings, so I, too, am surprised how late in the day this issue is being debated.
Hindsight is a perfect science, and I usually think that there is little point in picking over the bones of how we got here, but I am told that the unusual use of the fast-track procedure, which hampers full consultation and scrutiny, when we have known for so long that the Games are coming to town, necessitates some questions and clarification that I hope that my noble friend can provide. First, and most importantly in my view, there are the views of shopworkers as expressed in the USDAW survey. I share some of the scepticism of my noble friend Lady Trumpington about such surveys, but I have to agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I worked for a living for five years in the catering industry and I know at first hand the pressure that one is put under to take on shifts and work when one would ideally choose not to do so. Can my noble friend say whether the figures from USDAW have been contradicted by other statistics from shopworkers? If not, precisely what concerns have outweighed the views of shopworkers?
Why does the suspension period begin with the Sunday before the Olympics start? The opening ceremony is not until 27 July, but shops will be open all over the country on 22 July. I cannot see why the deregulation could not be limited to the official merchandising outlets of the requisite size directly connected to the Olympics: in the Olympic Park, in the athletes’ village and in Hyde Park. Those areas are geographically discrete and the workers affected would, I assume, be temporary workers hired just for the period of the Olympics. In the context of my role as a trustee of an Olympic-related charity, I have dealt with the lawyers at LOCOG, and I rest assured that the intellectual property rights and association rights will leave no one in any doubt as to what is an official merchandising outlet, whether it be in London or at any of the other venues around the country.
I am also curious to know where the initiative came from for such legislation. Was it from the official merchandising outlets, which I accept are an anomaly, or was it Westfield in Stratford or the big supermarkets? Why was that issue not covered in what I understand to be two periods of legislative consideration of the Olympics and Paralympics?
I would also be grateful for any further information on why there is not a case to leave these longer hours on Sundays to the smaller businesses in the country for which such a boost in revenue, when they do not have to compete with the larger stores, is surely much more significant to their cash flow and profits than the additional hours on a Sunday for the highly profitable large supermarkets. What is the Government’s case or evidence that additional money would be spent during these extra hours in places such as Westfield in Stratford that would not otherwise have been spent at all, rather than having been spent in smaller shops? I am not 100 per cent clear about the financial or economic case being made for the liberalisation. I was grateful to hear the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, regarding the experience in Germany. If it was possible for the Germans to estimate the economic benefits, why has it seemingly not been possible to come to a concrete estimate of what would be the economic case in our country, particularly for smaller businesses?
However, I am very grateful to hear the assurance from the Minister that this is not only temporary legislation with a sunset clause but that it is not being used as an experiment to see whether there will be a sufficient boost to the economy to use as a platform for further deregulation. I am so proud to be part of a Government who have kept to their commitment to give 0.7 per cent of our GDP in international aid, as the Prime Minister has stated that we refuse to build our recovery on the back of the world’s poorest. In my view, any further deregulation of Sunday trading would be seeking to build our recovery on the back of some of our poorest paid workers.
Aviation: Passenger Duty
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
As I have explained, the previous Government moved from a two-band system to a four-band one, which raised in the order of £300 million when they came into office and, by the time they left office, was raising in the order of £1 billion. These things are not easy. Where there are real difficulties, however, the Government recognise them. For example, special arrangements have been put in place for long-haul flights out of Northern Ireland to recognise its very special circumstances—its land border with a country that has no APD—and to preserve its flights to the United States. We have said that we will also look at the possible devolution of APD to Wales and Scotland.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, one of the ways in which the system deals with anomalies is to divide large countries such as the Russian Federation into two APD bands. Why has it not been possible to have such a solution for the United States and Canada, which remain in one band and which creates the injustice that my noble friend Lady Benjamin referred to?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, after reviewing this question at considerable length, a decision was taken to leave well alone on all this. As I have tried to explain, as soon as one moves one thing, that opens up the question of all sorts of other adjustments to maintain the revenue.