Spending Review and Autumn Statement
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, picking up the last comment made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, but for this House, those tax credit cuts would have become law that night. The possibility that they would subsequently have been abated seems to me improbable if they had already been banked. I am delighted, as I am sure everyone is, that the Government listened to this House and to widespread concern in the country about tax credits, which was shared by all. I am sure that we are all relieved that some 3 million low-income families will now not receive letters at Christmas telling them that they would experience cuts of between £1,000 and £3,000 a year. Noble Lords should be much praised for their willingness to require the other place to think again, as they have done—and how glad I am that they have.
However, I am puzzled by some of the comments in the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, correctly quoted—I would expect nothing less—from page 10 of the Statement, where the Chancellor says that because of,
“an improvement in the public finances”,
the tax credit cuts will not now happen, so these cuts are not now apparently necessary. However, on page 3, the Chancellor says that the £12 billion of welfare cuts,
“will be delivered in full”.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My question, if the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will give me the courtesy of allowing me to speak, is: why do we need these cuts if public finances show that the tax credit cuts are not necessary, and where precisely will they fall? I have to say that the answers are not there.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, if I understand the noble Baroness’s questions correctly and specifically—I am not entirely sure that I do—it has been made clear in the Chancellor’s speech that there will be a series of measures over the term of the Parliament and the period covered by the spending review and Autumn Statement. By the end of the Parliament we will have achieved the £12 billion of savings that was set out, and the migration to universal credit will play the role that it was intended to play.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Employment: compensation for shift cancellations
The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring employers to pay compensation to workers, including zero hours contract workers, whose shifts are cancelled with short notice as defined in the regulations.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, there are many benefits to a flexible labour market but I believe, and I am sure your Lordships believe, that exploitation of staff by employers should not be one of them. One woman who worked in hospitality on a zero-hours contract said, “I never worked no hours in a week but couldn’t find out until the Sunday before the working week began how many hours I would have in the coming week—never more than 30, sometimes as few as 13. My hours were often changed on very short notice and you would be sent home if it was quiet”. She would turn up for work and be told that, “It wasn’t busy enough for me to be needed, even before I could take off my coat”. She went home unpaid. She could not complain as she would be punished with fewer hours the next week. You could not call in sick even if you were because you would be punished with fewer hours the next week, and you could not risk leaving the job without fear of being sanctioned by the DWP.
Let me remind the House that under ZHCs you have no guaranteed hours of work. People on such contracts include cooks, cleaners, call centre and customer services staff, drivers, waiters, hotel and shop workers and domiciliary care workers—there are 300,000 of those. They are mostly women. Over 1 million people on or around the minimum wage are on ZHCs and do not usually know on Friday what hours they will be working on Monday. Three-quarters of those on ZHCs find their hours vary every week. Nearly half are given no notice at all. As one SportsDirect worker said, “Shifts are changed and cut without any notice. Shifts vary week by week”. Another call centre worker never knows whether she will work 48 hours or no hours the next week.
We all want people to work. It is right that they should but insecurity and exploitation from ZHCs can sabotage the rewards of work, including people’s efforts to build a job, a home and a life for their family. These are not temporary jobs: one-quarter of people have worked in their job for 10 years or more. Without a steady income, they cannot buy, or sometimes even rent, a home. They cannot replace a broken washing machine because the next week they may have only five hours instead of 25 hours of work. They cannot get credit or enter into a financial contract, even for a mobile phone. Instead, of course, they go into debt.
As the Government rightly remind us, ZHCs work for some—students, obviously, or the recently retired supplementing their income. But let us just imagine what it is like for the rest, particularly those with children, who work on ZHCs for hours on end and really do not know from one week to the next what they will earn and what they can feed their children, for five, or even 10, years.
I am very pleased that, in the Bill, the Government are banning exclusivity contracts, under which you are tied to an employer 24/7, whether there is work or not. That is good and right. However, there is one minor but deeply unpleasant issue that we could and should address today, if your Lordships agree. Nearly half of ZH workers get no notice when their shift is cancelled. A further 10% get up to 12 hours’ notice. Only 4% have one week’s notice.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am grateful to all my noble friends who took part in the debate—my noble friends Lady Drake, Lord Young and Lord Cunningham. Indeed, I am grateful for all the contributions from around the House. However, what has puzzled me a little about the contributions from around the House is the fact that most of the argument seems to have been about the need for, and virtues of, zero-hours contracts as such, and the need for a flexible labour market. I had hoped that we had been at pains to establish that of course customers, consumers, passengers and patients now live in a 24/7 economy. The issue is not about ZHCs; it is not even about codes of practice, because good employers such as Marks & Spencer do not abuse ZHCs, whereas Boots does. Pret a Manger does not abuse them, although McDonald’s does. Good employers can already decide how best to employ their staff. Whether a company does or does not have ZHCs is not the issue.
The issue is that there are some people with ZHCs, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, rightly said, who are exploited and suffer because although they are summoned to work by text, often overnight, they turn up and are then sent home again without a penny. What is more, they may have spent £5 or £8 in travel costs to get there and back. They may have spent £15 or £20 in childcare to get there and back and they get not a penny of recompense for the expenditure they made to uphold their side of the ZHC contract.
All that I am asking for is fairness, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said—fairness between the employer who can dispense with the services of somebody and the employee. He may need to do that—I can see the point—but it should not be the worker who exclusively and solely bears the cost of the cancellation. That is what is unfair; not ZHCs, not flexible labour contracts, but the fact that only one party, the most vulnerable, the poorest, the weakest, should bear the cost of a zero-hours contract when they turn up to work and the work is taken away from them, even though they are doing exactly what the employer requests.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was worried. I thought that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was admirable in putting the simple point that the amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations, but keeps the content entirely open. However, we expect them to reflect the spirit of the discussion in this House tonight that zero-hours contract workers—the people we are concerned about—should be able to be protected in this way.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Secretary of State already had powers to do that. This was followed up by a letter saying that that was not the case. The order-making power does not extend to other issues around ZHCs such as compensation for late-notice cancellations. I repeat that the Secretary of State has no power presently to regulate this anomaly at best—this exploitation, bluntly, at worst—that we all agree is unfair. He has no such power. The amendment would give him that power. After consultation with the sector—it may take months, I fully accept that—he can then introduce appropriate requirements for codes of practice or whatever may be proper to defend the people of whom the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so eloquently reminded us: the lone parent who may be £20 or £30 out of pocket because at five minutes’ notice her shift is cancelled. At the moment, the Secretary of State does not have the power to do that.
This is not about ZHCs or the flexible labour market, I am asking your Lordships to do what this House is always at its best in doing: say to the Secretary of State, “We are willing to give you the power, we expect you to handle it sensibly, in consultation with industry, but it is not fair, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, that the most vulnerable should pay the cost of the employer’s requirements”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness’s amendment goes beyond zero-hours contracts. She is emphasising the zero-hours aspects, but this is compensation to all workers, as I sought to explain—and I sought to explain the perversities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
If the noble Baroness is worried that the technical quality of the amendment is insufficient, it can be overturned in the other place and replaced with an amendment that embodies what she and the Secretary of State would wish to see. There is no problem about that. When I was a Minister, I accepted amendments all the time that were technically defective but which reflected the spirit and will of this House, because it was the right thing to do. If they needed tidying up, that could be done perfectly easily in the other House. That is not a reason not to accept the amendment today.
We are talking about ZHCs; all of us have been talking about ZHCs. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, this is fair and the right thing to do. Workers who keep their side of the contract should not then find themselves out of pocket, because the employer does not. The CBI agrees. I hope that your Lordships will also agree tonight. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
“Workers: inclusion within national insurance system
All workers shall be eligible for inclusion within the national insurance system where the relevant worker’s annual earnings reach or exceed the annualised level of Job Seeker’s Allowance.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive an amendment that superficially seems nerdish, but it is an issue that will make or break many people’s lives. Please bear with me.
National insurance is a contributory system entitling you to sick and holiday pay, and, above all, the state pension. You come within it if, in any one waged job, you earn £5,700, which is about 16 hours a week’s work at minimum wage, which is the lower earnings limit—the LEL—although you do not actually pay national insurance until you earn £7,500. Over the years, all parties have rightly recognised that people in unwaged work—primarily women caring for children or elderly people—should be credited into NI and not lose their right to the state pension because they put their family first. All around the political spectrum, we have also respected the position of disabled people with difficult work prospects, who are also credited in, and those who are unemployed on JSA—assuming, of course, that they are properly searching for and training for work. They, too, get credited into national insurance.
Who, then, is left out? It is workers with part-time jobs, which includes two groups in particular. The first is middle-aged women. They have juggled a portfolio—to put it grandly—of part-time jobs, such as cleaning and shop work, with family care. It is a splintered workload, none of which separately qualifies them for national insurance. At least in the past married women could rely on the 60% dependency pension from their husbands. That disappears from 2016, so they will then not get a pension from their husband and currently they do not get one from their own waged and unwaged work. Depending on their back history, they will not get much from the state either. That is how we will reward them for doing what most of us believe is right: fitting their work around their family responsibilities. As a result, they lose years of state pension.
The second group is young people. They may be on JSA. They do everything that is required of them. They apply for countless full-time jobs and do not even get their application acknowledged. Going to Jobcentre Plus, nearly all of the jobs available are part time; many of them are also on ZHCs. It has been estimated that one-third of young people under the age of 30 are in short-hour or ZHC jobs. They do what we should be cheering them on to do. They come off JSA and cobble together a portfolio of perhaps three part-time jobs such as a sandwich job at lunchtime, security work in Boots of an afternoon and bar work in Wetherspoons of an evening. It is hard, risky, expensive and tiring work travelling to and maintaining several insecure jobs whose hours may change and clash with each other every week. They just hope that one of those jobs may lead to secure work but with the portfolio work they lose the NI rights they had when they did nothing but remain on JSA. Stay passively on JSA, come into national insurance and get your pension; come off JSA into several part-time jobs, work 30 hours a week or more but because no one single job is above the LEL lose your national insurance rights, holiday pay, sick pay and, above all, pensions. Can you imagine anything more morally perverse?
The national insurance problem is not exclusive to ZHCs; it affects perhaps up to 6 million people, largely women, with part-time jobs, but ZHCs make it far worse. On ZHCs you may work 20 hours in week one, 10 hours in week two, 20 in week three and, because that is all your employer wants, 10—back down the snake—in week four. So in weeks one and three with 20 hours a week you seek tax credits from HMRC to top up your wage. In weeks two and four on 10 hours you cannot, so instead you turn to the DWP for JSA, only you will probably not get it because you are not fully available for work and, as your 10 hours may suddenly become 20 hours, if that is what the employer requests, you are excluded from JSA. Simultaneously you are dealing with HMRC for tax credits, the DWP perhaps for JSA and the local council for fluctuating housing benefit payments and council tax support. It is a nightmare. It is a full-time job just applying for benefits.
Universal credit will help, and I support it, but it will take until 2020—another five years—before it is fully rolled out, if then. It should help that lone parent but not the older woman whose partner’s earnings float them off universal credit, nor the young man with the sandwich shop job, security job and bar work. Even for the lone parent, UC is paid monthly and in arrears, so what does she do in a low-pay job in a low-hour week? She goes for payday loans.
I could not do it. I could not cope, especially if I had children to care for, with not knowing my hours or my wages each week, or what the three bureaucracies of HMRC, the DWP and the local authorities might do about it either. Nor could I cope with not knowing when any or all of the money may come in and when it does, whether it is even correct. These are years when you may lose all entitlement to accrue a state pension. Lose seven years of NI and you lose £30 a week for the rest of your life. Have 10 years on a set of ZHC jobs and lose NI and you lose £45 a week for the rest of your life. What to do?
In a vote a few months ago, your Lordships agreed to allow two jobs below LEL to be aggregated to bring someone into NI. A number of Conservatives—although I do not think any Lib Dems—spoke in favour of it. I am not sure of that. The coalition Government, however, said no and overturned it. I then suggested that we should treat such people as self-employed. That was not accepted by the coalition Government. Could a part-time job or three be regarded as meeting JSA conditionality and, as with JSA, get you into national insurance? That was not acceptable to the coalition Government either. I tried in Committee on the Bill to reduce the LEL, bringing it down to about £3,000; I calculated that the cost would be trivial. That was not acceptable to the coalition Government either. So what then?
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
What was the noble Baroness doing for the 13 years of the previous Government, if she is accusing this Government of doing nothing?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
That is a perfectly fair question. I point out to the noble Lord who sat opposite someone like me throughout the passage of the Welfare Reform Act from 2011 to 2012, with something like 17 Committee sittings, that I believe that the phrase “zero-hours contract” was not mentioned once—certainly not by me nor by the noble Lord, as far as I am aware. Therefore, in that context, the issue did not arise.
I tried to reduce the LEL but I could not. This time I suggest we again lower the LEL—the cash threshold at which you come into NI—to the cash value of JSA, which is £72.40 a week or near enough £3,750 a year. On JSA, at £72.40, you are currently credited into NI. With this amendment if you are earning £72.40 per week in any one job, 11 to 12 hours per week at minimum wage, you also get your NI stamp. It is simple and fair. If it is good enough for JSA, it should be good enough for part-time work. Get JSA and get your pension, work hard in three 12-hour jobs, each below the LEL, and do not. What sort of message is that?
The question is do we want social security to support a flexible labour market, to abate some of its risks, to ensure for workers some of its rewards such as the state pension or do we simply not care what happens to them down the line? If so, what are we saying to people about wanting to come off benefits and go into work? Why, under the system we now have, would they want to? It is not rational to do so. Too many people have more to lose than to gain and this amendment would help overcome that moral dilemma. I beg to move.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is again bringing to our attention the issue of workers in multiple low-paid jobs. We debated this matter in Committee and the noble Baroness put forward a number of proposals then for dealing with the situation. We have before us today a proposal to include people with earnings at or above the annual value of jobseeker’s allowance. As contributory jobseeker’s allowance is payable for only six months and there are different amounts, I assume that the noble Baroness means to proxy the higher rate of around £4,000.
Just so that we are clear about the figures that we are talking about, I can confirm the characteristics of the workers that the noble Baroness is concerned about. They are people whose earnings in a single job fall below the threshold for paying or being credited with national insurance, that threshold being £5,700. That is the band of people the amendment is dealing with.
The noble Baroness has been very dogged on this issue and has suggested a number of other ways in which we might deal with it, such as changing the system to allow earnings to be aggregated; treating those people as self-employed and being able to pay class 2 contributions; treating them as unemployed and being able to receive NI credits; or lowering the earnings entry point for access to the NI system to £3,000 or, now, £4,000.
However, as I explained in our previous debate, I am afraid that none of those solutions is at all straightforward and there is a danger that they could all, to a greater or lesser extent, involve unnecessary administrative expenditure, perverse outcomes and possible new inequalities in the national insurance system. I know that such potential unintended consequences are not the noble Baroness’s intention, but they exist and they underline the reason for treading carefully in this area.
The proposal before us today would, for example, create a new cliff edge for those who earn below the threshold and increase the exchequer cost in terms of both administration and benefits paid, with little or no corresponding revenue. It would also bring in workers who might not need protection, such as students with weekend jobs working fewer than 12 hours a week. Such students are highly likely to gain sufficient years to qualify for a full state pension later in their working lives. The noble Baroness’s other solutions would increase the burdens on businesses, require a significant compliance regime to police people’s employment status or need to be extended to everyone with more than one job in a tax year to avoid unfair consequences.
The noble Baroness has expressed a view on the likely size of the group, the persistence of this type of work pattern and its effect on benefit entitlements. In February, the Department for Work and Pensions published updated estimates that around 50,000 people a year have multiple low-paid jobs and are not paying, or being treated as paying, national insurance that they would otherwise do if their earnings were aggregated —that is 0.2% of the workforce.
In response to concerns from your Lordships’ House during debate on the Pensions Bill last year, the DWP set up a forum of analytical experts last July, with an independent chair, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is a member. This forum’s remit is to consider the available evidence, the characteristics of this group, the effect of zero-hours contracts and the implications for state pension outcomes. The forum has looked at a number of alternative data sources, but none was found to provide more reliable information than that available from the Labour Force Survey on which DWP based its analysis. Having been party to the forum, the noble Baroness will be aware that it has yet to draw any firm conclusions, so in our view it would be premature to legislate now.
I accept that, of this group of 50,000 people, around 80% are women. However, this population is by no means static. Many of those affected are likely to build up their national insurance record in the future through paid or credited contributions. Under state pension reform, over 80% of people would be entitled to the full pension amount by the mid-2030s. There is also no evidence that this is a growing problem. The number of women working in two or more jobs has hardly changed for the past 10 years, remaining at about 5% of those in work. Furthermore, the recent Johnson review concluded that earnings change significantly over a lifetime and most low earners go on to earn more.
I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that the Government are continuing work in this area, and the findings of the forum, once available, will help inform what, if any, action should be taken. However, I believe that it would be premature to pass this amendment now. In part, that is because the point of setting up the forum was to examine the evidence presented and then move to the next stage. Secondly, before taking any action in this very complicated area, we should undertake a full analysis of the costs and benefits of the various courses before us—something that, in general terms, I believe the noble Baroness has been in favour of.
I doubt that I shall have satisfied the noble Baroness, but none the less I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her superb contribution. She put it wonderfully well.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, intervened, I thought that he might make a fuller contribution. His basic charge was that we did not do anything about this. We did. I do not normally go around shouting about this, but we persuaded James Purnell that grandparents who were caring for children and carers of older people should come into the national insurance system and be credited at 20 hours a week. Previously, carers of older people came into the system only if they worked for 35 hours a week—effectively full time—for one person only. I persuaded the then Secretary of State that a carer doing more than 20 hours a week should get, not carer’s allowance, but national insurance credit. I also persuaded him that grandparents caring for their grandchildren and thus freeing their daughter to work should benefit from what was then HRP. This was effectively transferred from the daughter, who, since in work, would be in the national insurance system in her own right. I thank James Purnell, the last Secretary of State with whom I worked on this, who agreed both those changes.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Now that she mentions them, I accept that there are things that her Government did. Will she also accept that there is quite a lot that this Government have been doing to look at what is quite a complex problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I do not accept that at all. We shall come back to that point when we talk about the forum. Apart from the wider issue of universal credit, the Government have not done anything to help these groups in the last four and a half years—I can think of not one thing. If the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, can think of something, then we shall see whether we agree on the evidence. Not only did we persuade James Purnell, who responded generously and positively, but also, as my noble friend rightly said, women had the safety net of a 60% dependency pension. The noble Lord’s party, through his right honourable friend, Steve Webb, has got rid of that 60% dependency pension for married women from 2016 so that a group of women who would have had some pension in retirement have now lost it. I should not be too keen on boasting about that if I were the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham.
At that time we were also told that the number of people with multiple jobs was only 20,000—mostly women, so they did not count. Now we have 50,000 and apparently they still do not count. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said earlier today that zero-hours contracts were a response to the recession. The increase in jobs has come largely since 2010 and has only been apparent for most of us since about 2012. We went through very many mostly happy hours in which this was never discussed when we were considering the Welfare Reform Bill.
Lord Popat (Con)
Order please. We are on Report. I am afraid that intervention is limited.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
It is my fault, my Lords—I tempted the noble Lord and he could not resist. The point about zero-hours contracts and short hours is that they were seen largely as a middle-aged women’s problem, but there was some degree of protection. What has happened since the recession is that a third or perhaps a half of those under the age of 30 are cobbling together 30 or 35 hours’ work a week from splintered jobs, none of which, as far as we can see at the moment, would for many of them bring them into the national insurance system. That is the new dimension. It is the very dimension that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned in his speech on the previous amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we should be introducing a new cliff edge for those below the JSA level who might be working only 12 hours a week. However, in this case, they would be better off on JSA, which they could still receive. The first £20, or the first £5 depending on their status, would be disregarded for these purposes. The rest of the hours would not be counted up until they hit JSA level, at which point the person would get JSA. That can already be done now. Therefore it is not true that there would be a cliff edge—it is not an adequate offer back. When people work 10, 12 or 14 hours, it is deducted off their JSA and if their JSA is higher, they keep it. The argument is invalid.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that many students will not need to be within the national insurance system since in later years they will go on to build their contributions. In that case there is no cost or problem to the Government at all. The problem now is that people only know at the end of their working lives whether they have got a sufficient contribution record. If you are poor and you have got missing years you are not able to fish your earlier years. If students are building up redundant ones they are no different from anyone who works for 40 years’ worth of stamp and only needs 35 to get into the national insurance system. What we are giving them is a measure of protection that they might not otherwise have. Therefore I do not see why the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is worried.
The noble Lord’s third and final point was that this affects only 50,000 people, as if 50,000 people do not really matter. There were something like 25,000 or 30,000 women who were partners or spouses of people in the armed services who lost national insurance when they accompanied their partner abroad. I made this point. His right honourable friend in the other place, Steve Webb, conceded and brought those partners— mostly women but not invariably so—into the NI system. They were only half the number we are talking about today, but he deemed that it was appropriate and desirable. Even though it was far more complex than what we are dealing with today, he did it. I hope we are not being told that 50,000 is too trivial to bother about in one area but that 20,000 is fine in another. That argument simply will not run.
Finally, as I have said, the Minister says that we are talking about only 50,000. I reckon that that is a gross underestimate. He is drawing on the ONS and the Labour Force Survey in which people self-report their status. The CIPD figures we talked about earlier drew instead on a survey of employers who had far more accurate information about the employment status of their staff.
As he will know, the forum we set up, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member, recently has had information which suggests that if you look at the P14s, which is what the employers submit to HMRC, as opposed to what the employees submit, it looks as though something like 130,000 people additionally may come into this situation, as well as another 30,000 or so who we do not know about because the employers are too small. Therefore, the figure clearly is more likely to be 200,000 based on more reliable information coming from the employers through P14s than the 50,000 figure that the noble Lord offered us, which is based on incomplete and inaccurate information or on people simply not fully understanding their legal status as far as their contract of employment may be concerned.
Those are the arguments of the noble Lord. I do not think that any of them is true. The cliff edge argument is not relevant; the number argument is not the case; and the question of students making it unnecessary does not matter because there will be no cost or complication for us.
As for having to wait for the results of the forum, I have tried to get that forum to discuss the policy options. The civil servants have been most helpful. The forum was explicitly told by the Minister’s right honourable friend Steve Webb that we were not to discuss policy but only to try to get some accurate numbers. That is fine but we could have discussed policy on the basis of this; that was prohibited and therefore we were not able to do so. I am afraid that he attributes to this forum greater powers, greater range, greater extensiveness and greater capacity to encourage change, which is an assumption that I would have liked to share with him, than his right honourable friend permitted.
I am sorry but I do not think that anything the Minister has said tonight takes us one step forward. He does not rebut a single argument that my noble friend Lady Drake and myself made. None the less, given the time, obviously I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“The Treasury shall ensure that appropriate information is provided and disseminated so that people can make informed choices as to the effect of pensions freedoms and flexibilities on income-related benefits and social care costs.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, from April the new pension freedoms at 55 may bring joy to many but, in my view, they are destroying the integrity of DWP benefit rules—and no one seems much to care. I find that a bit shocking. Many thousands of rather vulnerable people will not know where they stand or what they do; neither will their CAB or Pensions Advisory Service advisers. Yet time is running out, hence this amendment asking for guidance.
Clearly, and currently, DWP has sensible rules for those of working age needing means-tested benefits. Income, say from a mini-job, counts against your benefits, as do savings, say in a building society or in ISAs, which are above £6,000. They taper out benefit until at £16,000 of savings your entitlement to any means-tested benefit is abolished. DWP rules also stop you claiming benefit if you have deliberately got rid of your savings, perhaps by gifting them to your son. Any capital that is truly inaccessible, however, and which you cannot give away or spend—for example, your home and, until recently, your pension pot—is rightly ignored.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for her amendment, which obviously addresses an extremely important issue.
This amendment seeks to place a separate and additional duty on the Treasury to provide appropriate information on the effect of pension freedoms and flexibilities on income-related benefits and social care costs. I agree that it is vital that people understand how benefits and social care entitlements interact with the new pensions flexibility and that consumers need to be aware of the impact of accessing their pension pot on their eligibility for income-related benefits and help with social care costs.
The Treasury is working to ensure that the content of the Pension Wise service includes information about entitlement and deprivation rules so that consumers are aware of these when choosing whether to access their pension savings. We are also working to ensure that people are aware of the need to plan for later life, including the risk of needing care and support and what that might mean for their choices. This will help people think about how they wish to live the rest of their lives. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, the Care Act provides that no one is required to sell their home to pay for care. The difference in this case is that the lump sum is income in the year taken, and we agree that this will need to be covered in guidance, both on pension pots and on social care, which we will provide.
The DWP will issue clear guidance on the treatment of pension pots in income-related benefits in advance of April. This is to help people make informed decisions about accessing their pension pot. We plan to do this, as requested by the noble Baroness, by producing a leaflet which we will both print in hard copy and place online on GOV.UK. Other websites will be able to link to this information, and there will definitely be such a link from the GOV.UK Pension Wise website, which will direct those who are affected by this issue to the DWP information. Pension Wise will be a key way of equipping people with this information online on GOV.UK, on the phone through the Pensions Advisory Service, and face to face through citizens advice bureaux across the country. Alongside the new content being developed for Pension Wise, the new guidelines will also be reflected in the training programme for guidance specialists from the Pensions Advisory Service and Citizens Advice.
As the noble Baroness said, she met my noble friend Lord Bourne and me earlier this week to discuss the substantive policy issue—namely, the interaction of pension flexibilities with the benefits and social care means tests. The principal query that the noble Baroness raised is whether the distinction we make between ISAs and other savings vehicles, as opposed to pension pots, in benefits means testing remains fair after the introduction of the new flexibilities. ISAs are taken fully into account in income-related benefits, whereas we ignore untouched pension pots until someone reaches pension credit qualifying age. The noble Baroness argues that this is an arbitrary distinction now that the tax treatment of the two products is more aligned.
The Government, however, firmly believe that the difference is an important one. ISAs are for use at any time, but we specifically encourage people to save into pensions to provide for themselves in later life. We would not want to design our benefit system in such a way as to encourage people to spend their retirement savings when they are still below pension credit qualifying age. Aligning the treatment of ISAs with that of pension pots in the means test would be expensive for the taxpayer, as people with resources could secure more benefit. On the other hand, aligning the treatment of pension pots with that of ISAs would mean that claimants could lose benefits and so may deplete their pension savings before reaching their retirement. Neither outcome is desirable, and we therefore believe that the current position remains the right one.
This gives rise to a second question that concerns the noble Baroness, which is whether this situation gives individuals the opportunity to move their ISAs, which would be taken into account, into their pension pots, which would not be taken into account until pension credit qualifying age. The Government have considered the matter seriously and, in the light of our analysis, we do not feel that we need to act on this matter presently. The numbers of income-related benefits claimants with substantial ISAs is relatively modest and, should people move their savings to their pension pot, the additional upfront welfare costs to the Exchequer are partly offset by welfare savings in later life as those individuals would rely less on income-related benefits as a pensioner. On this issue, we plan to monitor behaviour after April when the new pension flexibilities are introduced, and respond proportionately if we need to.
I should add that people deliberately depriving themselves of money in order to secure or increase benefit entitlement may be subject to rules on deprivation of assets that already exist in both the benefit and social care systems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Is the Minister saying—he may go on to say this in the next sentence—that if you cycle your ISAs into your pensions, that would be deprivation of capital?
Lord Newby
No, I do not think I am saying that. I will make sure that I am not and correct myself if I am wrong. All I am saying is that the deprivation of assets rules which currently apply will continue to apply in respect of money taken out of ISAs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
That was my question. Can the Minister explain to me why, if money is taken out of ISAs and goes into pensions, that is not deprivation of assets?
Lord Newby
It is not the point at which money goes from ISAs into pensions that is a deprivation of assets. Deprivation of assets may occur if and when money is taken out of one or both of those pots.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
So if you have more than £16,000 in a building society, which stops you getting means-tested benefits, and you take that money out of your building society account and put it into a pension pot, is that deprivation of assets?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that is an extremely interesting question to which I do not have the answer. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment before the House, which is to do with whether the Government will give adequate guidance on the issue. The amendment is not about the detailed substance of the rules which are being dealt with not least via a series of discussions with the noble Baroness, as she said. Those discussions will continue. I will happily write to her and other noble Lords about these detailed issues but I stress that the purpose of the guidance—the point of this amendment—is to ensure that the guidance correctly reflects policy. That is what we have committed to do. We have explained how we are going to do it. We have met the noble Baroness’s perfectly sensible idea that we produce a specific leaflet to do it, and we will do that by the beginning of April.
As I explained, we have already had a number of discussions with the noble Baroness and have agreed to meet her after today and before the start of the Recess to continue our discussion on these important matters. I know that she is still unhappy about what the Government are doing with regard to the substance and some of the details of this issue. As I say, we are committed to making sure that we have the maximum degree of clarity. We are committed to having further negotiations with the noble Baroness to tease out—
Lord Newby
My Lords, for the third time, if you move money from your ISA to your pension pot, that is not a deprivation of asset. The Treasury is in charge of the guidance process.
Lord Newby
The noble Baroness has an aversion to the Treasury—I cannot imagine why—but the Treasury has this power to provide the guidance under the Bill. The Treasury and the FCA have set out the details of what the guidance has to contain. It is already written into the FCA rulebook that it has to cover benefits. Therefore, the Government’s contention is that there is no need for a second amendment requiring this to be in the Bill when not only will it happen, but the rules saying that the guidance providers must do it are already in existence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am grateful to all of those who have taken part. It was really helpful to try to tease out some of the very serious issues. They are serious. All of us are concerned about a rising benefit bill, particularly where there are cuts across other objectives such as the health service, education and whatever. We also want to support those services.
These proposals were imposed on the DWP. My sympathies are entirely with the DWP, which is trying to sort out the mess created by an open-handed gesture from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has not been thought through for its implications for means-tested benefits. That is the problem which is apparent today, from everything that we have heard. We still do not know half the answers. I am quite sure that the DWP and DWP Ministers are doing their honourable and decent best to try to make some sense out of a tangle and mess that has been dumped on them by HMT. I am not blaming any Minister personally, but that is what has happened. HMT’s pension freedoms absolutely tear up the rulebook, particularly on DWP capital, which is there to protect all of us in terms of benefit expenditure. It is only after yesterday evening that we are beginning to get some detailed information. We have been pressing for this for five weeks in this House, let alone down at the other end.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who teased out further problems with the interaction between social care and pensions. I look forward to the letter that he so rightly asked for being in the Library.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, absolutely rightly emphasised the need for clarity. She is so right, but how can you have clarity when you have not fully sorted the policy problems behind what you are trying to explain to people? That is why we have come back with a very anodyne amendment, but behind it is the charge that the policy has not been fully sorted. I therefore hope that the actor writing that pamphlet will ensure that the policy is sorted.
I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, gave the game away, as that sounds too frivolous, but he made the point that you cannot align ISAs with pensions, because that does not work, and you cannot align pensions with ISAs, because that does not work for people over the age of 50. So he is stuck and we are all stuck because, as far as I can tell, nobody at HM Treasury took on board the very real skills and experience of the people at the DWP who have to operate the service in practice. Talk about silo government—although we are all guilty of that; I am not saying that we are whiter than white when obviously we are not. However, here is something that will affect hundreds of thousands of people, and the two departments have not got their act together. The DWP is trying to make rules which are not rules but simply arbitrary decisions, and I am confident that at least some of them will be tested by judicial review over the years.
This is a mess but I hope that this amendment, which I will of course withdraw given the undertakings that the Minister has given today, will at least send a signal, as the most reverend Primate said, and give us the chance to get the policy clear so that the leaflets can be clear. Frankly, in order for that to happen the DWP at the highest level has to talk to the Treasury at the highest level and come up with something which is decent, fair, transparent, consistent and simple, if it can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
No, I do not think that that is the intention. We believe, and are confident, that everybody will have been trained to a level at which they can give appropriate advice. It would be completely impractical and unnecessary to proceed as the noble Lord suggests. I can assure him that the Treasury is working extremely closely and collaboratively with the guidance bodies to design the service and ensure that we are ready for April. Are we confident that we will be? Yes, we are.
The noble Lord asked a number of other questions. Could I confirm that we expect a typical advice session to last 45 minutes? Yes, we can. He asked whether people would be able to go back and get a second bite of the cherry. We have already said that that will be possible, although we hope that if people do not have all the guidance they need, directing them to the website will deal with a lot of second-order issues.
The noble Lord outlined his understanding of the complaints procedure. I believe that the way he outlined it is correct. If not, I will write to him—I need to read it first.
The noble Lord also asked about operating hours, which are still being finalised.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
Would the Minister mind expanding a little on this? He, or certainly his colleagues, will know that as a result of cuts by the MoJ, CABs have lost 60% of their funding that has been going into legal aid. To my knowledge, this means that CABs have substantially restricted their hours, they are often unavailable on the telephone and they are offering a very reduced and spartan service, particularly in rural areas, where, at the same time, individuals cannot access through broadband any of the websites that TPAS and so on may go on to produce. Is the Minister saying that there will be enough funding, over and beyond paying the CAB advisers £18,000 a year or whatever after their training, to keep CABs open at full hours, rather than simply to mount the skeleton service that is all they can afford at the moment, thanks to the cuts by his colleague, the right honourable Chris Grayling?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am saying that we will designate a very significant number of CAB offices to provide this service, and the funding that we will provide will allow them to meet this additional requirement without having to draw on any of their existing funds. We are not planning to operate this service through every CAB, so I cannot say how it will affect any particular one. However, the key principle under which we are operating is that the CABs which participate in giving this advice will have the funding to do it without drawing on any of their other resources.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is the Minister saying therefore that the CABs will be open all the hours necessary for pensions advice, but will still be unavailable to help people who are at risk of losing their home because they have housing benefit problems?
“( ) must ensure that guidance includes the consequences of pensions flexibility on eligibility for income-related benefits and on assessment for care and support under section 17 of the Care Act 2014 (assessment of financial resources).”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I would like to move Amendment 21 in the names of my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord McAvoy and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who apologises for having to leave early. I hope, as this is a modest amendment asking for guidance, that the Government will accept it. I really do. There are huge issues to be untangled.
The Government are proposing that, at 55, people should have full access to their DC—defined contribution —pots, without, I believe, fully considering how this affects entitlement to means-tested, income-related benefits, IRBs, as well as payment for social care. Clearly, if a warehouseman of 56, earning perhaps £20,000 per year and living in private rented accommodation with a DC pot of £25,000, in future extracts £8,000 of it to buy a new car, that £8,000 will count as extra income in that year. Some of it will be taxable and it will affect any income-related benefits he may have, such as housing benefit. Obviously, guidance is absolutely essential, so that people with modest pots understand this. Taking some capital from their DC pot adds to their income—no question. It can both be taxed and affect any benefits.
So far, so simple—sort of. But what if our warehouseman can access the £25,000 in his pension pot but chooses not to do so, so that it sits there as capital? The social security capital rules of people of working age are clear: you are allowed £6,000 of savings without affecting your income-related benefits; from £6,000 to £16,000 your savings are assumed to generate an additional income of £1 for every £250 of capital per week; more than £16,000, you lose entitlement to means-tested benefits altogether. If, therefore, our warehouseman has savings, say, in an ISA worth £25,000, he has to spend down £10,000 of that to become eligible, say, for some housing benefit.
The question then is: what counts as accessible capital or savings such that they affect working-age benefits? Not your home—I will not raise issues of equity release here—nor an inaccessible pension pot; but savings accounts, unit trusts, stocks and shares, and ISAs do count, sensibly, so that one cannot shelter large savings, say of £100,000, while claiming taxpayer-funded benefits. The rules are there for a purpose. If you deliberately deprive yourself of capital—perhaps buying that Lamborghini—in order to claim housing benefit, you are treated as though that capital is still available to you.
However, from April you can access your DC money purchase pot at 55 in exactly the same way as you can access your ISA. Both pensions and ISAs are tax privileged. From 55, the only difference will be that with pensions you get tax relief when putting money in, and with ISAs when taking money out. Growth in either a pension or an ISA pot is tax-privileged in exactly the same way.
We know, however, that £25,000 in an ISA pot debars you from IRBs. What will happen now to a £25,000 pension pot equally accessible at 55? Under the existing rules on social security, having such a pot should stop you claiming IRBs until you have spent it down to below £16,000. Our warehouseman, who after 20 years with the same firm injured his back at 53, gets ESA and housing benefit, but at 55, because he can access his DC pot of £25,000, exactly like ISAs, he should lose his benefit—until, exactly like ISAs, he has spent it down to £15,000, whether or not he actually takes money out of the pot.
However, the Government do not like that; it rather spoils the pensions party. So they seek—irrationally, in my view—to treat pensions and ISAs differently, because, as the letter to me of 22 January from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, of which other noble Lords have also received copies, states:
“The key difference between the classification of pensions and ISAs rests on the tax treatment. Pensions have never been taxed, and so are effectively deferred income which has yet to be taken. As the primary purpose of pensions is for retirement, this is not assumed to generate an income until pension credit age. ISAs on the other hand are treated as capital rather than income, because they have been saved for out of already-taxed income. Although ISAs and pensions may appear more similar in the light of flexibility, they remain fundamentally distinct”.
But they do not; the argument is patently absurd. The key difference between pensions and ISAs in the past has not been their tax treatment, which is effectively identical if you are a basic rate taxpayer, both in work and in retirement, with the same tax relief on the way in and on the way out. That makes no difference at all, despite the letter from the Minister. The key difference has always been that ISAs are accessible and pensions are not. Because ISAs were accessible, they counted—rightly, in my view—against income-related benefits. Because pensions have not been accessible but were ring-fenced for retirement, they rightly did not count against income-related benefits.
The Minister says that the primary purpose of pensions, and therefore the reason for treating them differently from ISAs between 55 and 65, is that they are for retirement. That is true now, but it will not be after April 2015. That DC pot of £25,000 can be used at 55 for anything—buying a car, helping a daughter with university fees or helping a son with a mortgage deposit—just like ISAs. The pension pot can be wiped out by 65 even before you hit retirement—just like ISAs. Equally, the pension pot and the ISA pot made by choice both remain untouched until 65—just like ISAs. There is no difference. To argue that they have a different purpose because “pensions are for retirement” is whistling in the wind. DC pensions need no longer be for retirement at all; they are just like ISAs. Much of the research so far suggests that some people will treat them in practice exactly like ISAs and use them for whatever they see fit. For the Government to treat them differently makes a mockery of fair and consistent rules in social security.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I concentrate on the amendment. First, the Government believe it is right that the content of the guidance session is set out in FCA standards which are unfettered by a restrictive legislative framework.
The FCA consulted on these standards last year and published its responding policy statement, including a near-final version of the guidance standards, in November last year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord quite so quickly, but the amendment was not meant to refer solely and exclusively to face-to-face guidance that may or may not be offered by the CABs or TPAS. What I am talking about is a government leaflet, the content of which should also be on a website, explaining in very plain English exactly what all these interactions mean, and therefore allowing people to reflect on those before they then go off to the CABs to decide what is the best thing for them.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that there will be three strands of guidance: face-to-face guidance; telephone guidance; and information on the Treasury website. Perhaps we will produce a leaflet, but we hope that much of the detail of the background to the way in which the system will work will be on that website.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry to press this, and the noble Lord is being very generous in allowing me to intervene again. However, after following this Bill through, I do not know how these provisions will interact. I do not know whether it is okay to recycle your ISAs into pensions and carry on claiming full income-related benefits. This is not about guidance from the CABs. Unless the CABs know whether you are allowed to recycle your ISAs into pensions, how the hell can they give anybody any advice?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I will come to that. I shall deal with the amendment first because it raises an important point in itself before we get to some of the broader issues.
As I say, the FCA consulted on the guidance standards last year, and published its policy statement in November. The near-final FCA standards make certain specific requirements with regard to both collecting relevant information and providing certain types of information. Ensuring that consumers consider factors which are pertinent to their retirement decision, as relevant to them, is an important part of that which the standards capture. The standards require that, according to consumer needs, people are encouraged to provide relevant information about their financial and personal circumstances and their objectives to ensure that they can get maximum value from their guidance experience. In terms of financial information, this might include pension pots or benefits, other sources of wealth or income, including where the individual has a spouse or partner, tax status and debt. In terms of personal circumstances, this might include whether an individual has dependants, or a spouse or partner, and the state of their health and potential long-term care needs. In terms of objectives, this might include the consumer’s plan for retirement, so they can identify their income needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, spoke to this issue in Committee and asked about the effects of the new flexibilities on eligibility for income-contingent benefits and social care. That has been the burden of other speeches today. This is an extremely important issue and one to which the Government have given, and continue to give, detailed consideration. It is important that the treatment of such products is clear for claimants and for decision-makers, as noble Lords have pointed out. On guiding principles, the Government want to ensure that someone’s decision to use a flexible pension product does not significantly impact on how their means are assessed for social security purposes or social care charging purposes.
Our intention is for the principles of the current rules to remain in place after April this year. At the last Autumn Statement we announced a change to the notional income rules for benefits from April 2015, so that 100%—rather than 150% as now—of the income that an equivalent annuity would offer is taken into account. This will therefore be a more generous calculation than under the previous rules. Guidance will be tailored to an individual’s circumstances and give consideration to issues such as welfare, the need for and future likelihood of social care, and levels of savings and debt. However, where it is clear that consumers need specialist help, they will be directed to relevant specialist guidance and information as appropriate. In the case of social care needs, the guidance service will direct people to their local authority, which, under the Care Act, is obligated to direct them to sources of information and advice.
Benefits entitlement will be one issue for individuals to consider in making their choices, but it is only one of several important factors, such as tax consequences and personal circumstances. As we discussed on tax, there is a special requirement on pension providers to discuss with customers the potential tax implications of the course that they might follow. I can also reassure the House that the guidance service will ensure that consumers also consider relevant issues related to pension decisions, such as state pensions, debts, and other assets, wealth and income. The Government are committed to ensuring that individuals are equipped and empowered to make informed decisions on how to use their pension savings and to take account of these wider circumstances.
On the amendment, the guidance will include benefits. The problem that the noble Baronesses so eloquently described, particular concerning ISAs, is that there are a number of extremely detailed interactions between the savings options and the benefits and tax consequences that will need to be dealt with as part of the guidance. The concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which I completely understand, is that the Treasury and DWP will not get their act together and are not up to the job of doing this. Unsurprisingly, I am significantly more confident than she is. She has begun a correspondence with the DWP on the ISA issue; an e-mail from her to the department is awaiting a response. I can give her an assurance that she will get a detailed response in writing to the questions she has raised between now and Third Reading.
I am not seeking in any way to diminish the fact that potential areas of confusion might arise in particular cases. The challenge that we have accepted, and hope that we can rise to, is to ensure that the guidance and the people providing it will be able to guide people through some of these thickets. If it were not complicated, we would not need to go to such lengths to set up a guidance system in the first place. We are confident that we will deal with these issues, and that people, as they take up guidance, will get the information they require to enable them to make informed choices.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister’s answer—this is of course not personal; he is dependent on the briefing and the current state of the consideration in the two departments—frankly has appalled me. It is shocking. We are eight weeks away and apparently the two departments have not yet worked out the different rules for the treatment of ISAs and pensions. Are you allowed to cycle your ISAs into pensions to protect them but see the benefit bill go up? Answer: we know not.
We seem to have different rules for social care for those below 65 and above 65—above 65 you will pay, but below 65 you need not. A capital asset is essentially your pension. Is that right? We do not know. We do not know whether we will have fairness between people of a generation—those aged from 55 to 65—or whether we will have intergenerational fairness between those below 65 and those above it.
This is not about guidance; it is nothing to do with guidance at this stage. It is about getting the darned policy right. The policy has not been established. On all the difficult issues, the Government have said, “Have your choice and don’t worry about the small detail”. I am sorry but something like 15 million people are out there who in one way or another will be getting income-related benefits or state pension who need to know. We are eight weeks away and the Government, in the Minister’s words, say these issues are under “detailed consideration”.
This is awful. I have never seen anything of such significant importance to individuals in all my time—20-odd years in social security—or of such sizeable financial implications for taxpayers. We are eight weeks away and we have no clarity of policy that could therefore inform guidance. Writing guidance down and sending it off to CAB and TPAS is easy. What matters is getting the policy straight, and as far as I hear from the Minister tonight the Government have not even begun to do that. It is frankly appalling. I do not blame him. He is obviously a messenger—if I may use that word impertinently—from the DWP and is trying to put the best case he can, but this is shocking. I am sorry that unless he can tell us the policy answers to the questions raised by my noble friends and me tonight this has to be further explored at Third Reading because, as he said, it is under “detailed consideration” and he cannot give answers now.
All that the Minister has so far are inconsistent and contradictory policies, whether they come from HMRC, social care or the DWP. Even though he has had plenty of notice, he has been unable to put those bits together into a jigsaw so that we can even begin to recognise the picture on the box. Eight weeks away! He must be mortified. I would be if I had come to the House with that brief. I hope that, as a result, he will stamp his foot, and we will see whether he is in a position to give clarity of policy, following which there may then possibly be clarity of guidance on Third Reading. If not, I strongly suggest that he postpones Third Reading until the Government have got their act together. In some anger, I withdraw the amendment.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, again, this amendment seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s powers and to make it more explicit in the legislation. That is justifiable in the circumstances and we have identified the relevant provisions. There is some flexibility in it, so zero-hours workers have a right to be awarded financial compensation, of amounts to be determined by the Secretary of State. Employment tribunals are given powers to enforce their judgments, which is relevant and reasonable in the circumstances. Returning to an issue to which I referred in an earlier contribution, it imposes an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed-hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period or a series of continuous periods of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State. We are not seeking to do away with flexibility; we recognise that that is appropriate in some circumstances. However, we believe that at the moment zero-hours contracts are, in many circumstances, a bridge too far and that they deny workers basic employment rights.
Amendment 68ZAC is intended to ensure that workers are fully enabled and empowered by understanding the nature of the zero-hours contract, so the employer has to provide basic information about terms and conditions for all zero-hours workers within two months of their start date. Again, we think that is a reasonable requirement. We regard a contract of employment as an inalienable right of workers and we seek to extend that right to those on zero-hours contracts. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. The daughter of a friend works for a burger company and is on a ZHC. She does not know until the previous Friday what hours she will get for Monday. She cannot plan her life; she cannot budget; she cannot buy any large goods; she cannot study. She cannot do another job alongside it—I am delighted that the Government are moving to stop that ban continuing—and, if she were not living it home, she could not rent, as landlords want evidence of steady income. The Unite union, which has done splendid work on this, was told by a call-centre worker, who had worked for a multinational firm for five years: “I am only informed if I have shifts one week in advance and the hours I am given can range from nought to 48. I feel regularly anxious about whether I will be able to pay the rent and put food on the table.” She too is on a ZHC. A third person on a ZHC, a lone parent, expects, and is expected, to work on Fridays and had arranged and paid for childcare, as she must. Her shift was cancelled an hour before and she was told to work on Saturday instead. She had to pay for the childcare she did not need on Friday but could not find childcare for the Saturday when she needed it, so she refused. Her hours were cut the following week as punishment.
As my noble friend Lord Young said, we estimate that nearly 2 million people are on ZHCs in cleaning and domiciliary care, retail, hospitality, catering, call centres, construction and customer services, with wages at or around the minimum wage. Some 75% of those on ZHCs find that their hours vary every week and 40% are not allowed to work for anyone else, although we welcome the fact that this Bill begins to address that problem. They are on call—unpaid—and required at an hour’s notice. They are hoarded but not used, a sort of just-in-time stock control applied not only to tinned tomatoes but to staff. Of course, after six months they should be given a proper fixed-hour contract. We may be in a 24/7 economy, which needs a flexible labour market, but, as Pickavance argued in his report, fluctuating demand—the excuse for flexible labour and ZHCs—is largely predictable.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and the opportunity further to debate aspects of zero-hours contracts. I am also grateful for the clarification by the noble Lord, Lord Young, that he does not want to get rid of all flexibility. I was also very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, joined our discussion. Her three case studies demonstrate the need for Clause 148.
As I set out in our previous debate, the Government recently consulted on the matter of avoidance and routes of redress, including powers to go to employment tribunals and seek compensation. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that that is already possible under Section 27B in Clause 148.
Amendment 68ZX would require employers to offer fixed-hours contracts once an individual has worked regular hours as determined by regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned six months. Before I respond, let us reflect on how those with zero-hours contracts feel about their employment. The CIPD survey published in November 2013 found that many individuals chose to work on a zero-hours contract and were found to be more content than those in permanent employment. I accept that there will be hard cases but these are overall comments. Zero-hours workers, when compared to the average UK employee, are just as satisfied with their job, happier with their work-life balance and less likely to think that they are treated unfairly.
To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, fluctuating demand is not predictable. My noble friend Lady Harding told us about that at Second Reading from her experience. Even the noble Baroness acknowledged that there are sectors of the workforce and individuals—students, those in IT, the recently retired, and many others—who are happy with zero-hours contracts, and, of course, happier to have a job than not to have a job. Imposing restrictive criteria over how a zero-hours worker can be employed may have the perverse effect of discouraging employers from creating jobs at all.
I appreciate that that is not the noble Lords’ intention, but I know that the Committee will understand the risk of unintended consequences, because it is something that we consider a lot when we are trying to legislate in this House. There is a clear risk that employers will simply let people go, or offer no work at the end of a qualifying period to avoid converting the contract to fixed hours. It would also be very difficult to define what is meant by “regular hours” in all those different industries.
The Government have already made some changes in this area. The flexible working regulations were amended in June 2014 to ensure that any employee can request flexible working. That is just as relevant to someone on a zero-hours contract as it is to a permanent member of staff. If a zero-hours worker is an employee and can show 26 weeks’ continuous service, they can make a request for formalised hours or a particular shift pattern.
Amendment 68ZX also requires a right for zero-hours workers to be provided with financial compensation. As I understand it, that power is already provided for in the clause.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Minister says that people are satisfied with that. I was just checking my statistics from the CIPD, in which only one in five older people prefer the contract that is being offered them; the other four-fifths would like regular hours. The problem is that you cannot run a second job alongside a first—which is the point of Clause 148, which we all welcome—unless you know what your hours in the first job will be. It is very simple. Unless you have the ability to turn it into a reliable, regular, predictable contract, with the exceptions that we all agree may well be necessary—in IT, arts events, so on and so forth—the freedom you are giving in Clause 148 will be partly illusory. You cannot do it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification. This is not an easy area. I also note that she made a number of good points about bad employer practices. I will mention something we are doing that may help on all these points. We have already encouraged business groups and unions to develop codes of practice. Those need to be sector-specific and industry-led, as we think that creates the most impact. A one-size-fits-all solution from the centre will not work, for exactly the reasons that we are debating this afternoon. The guidance would include, for example, in what circumstances a zero-hours contract is appropriate and where it is not, and the kind of considerations mentioned by the noble Baroness will be relevant.
Amendment 68ZX also seeks powers for employment tribunals to enforce their own judgments. Well established court-based enforcement options are already available to enforce employment tribunal awards, such as the fast-track system or county court in England and Wales and the sheriff courts in Scotland. The primary function of the employment tribunal is of course to provide a forum in which parties can resolve their disputes and obtain a judgment. The employment tribunal does not have responsibility for the enforcement of the awards it makes to individuals. Tribunal-led enforcement of its own awards would represent a fundamental departure from the normal principles of civil justice and enforcement. If the enforcement of employment tribunal awards for zero-hours claims became a tribunal-led affair, many other employment tribunal and civil court users would begin to question why the tribunal or court did not pursue or enforce its judgments or awards.
Amendment 68ZAC suggests that zero-hours workers should be provided with information about their basic terms and conditions within two months of their start date. I agree that employers should provide their staff with clear terms and conditions, and I reassure noble Lords that employees are already entitled to a written—or, I think and hope, online—statement of the particulars of their employment arrangement. That entitlement applies to individuals on a zero-hours contract if their employment status is that of an “employee”. However, the Government acknowledge that there is a wider issue about whether all workers, regardless of their employment status, should be entitled to a written statement. That is being considered as part of the review of employment status, including the risks, impact and opportunities involved in any new arrangements, which I mentioned when we were discussing interns. Officials will report to Ministers on the outcomes in March.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also talked about the interlink between zero-hours contracts and jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit. Universal credit was of course designed to be responsive to fluctuations in earnings—it is different in that way, and to my mind better—so, for people who are working, financial support will be reduced at a consistent and predictable rate. In weeks where a claimant has lower or no income from their zero-hours contract, universal credit payments would increase.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The point is that if you are going to be paid only at the end of the month, what do you live on in the mean time? Just to make it clear, your universal credit payment will be paid in arrears at the end of the month. However, you learn only at the end of the second week that you do not have the income. Although I absolutely agree that UC will reflect the total earnings over the total month, what do you live on in weeks two and three?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness makes a point that bears on the universal credit payment system in the round. I think that the clause is actually helpful, compared to the status quo, if we make these changes on zero hours. I am advised that universal credit is paid in real time, so if the claimant informs the system in real time, they will get the money. I must apologise that I am not a welfare expert, I am a Business Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Whether it is the handwriting or whatever, it is certainly the case that UC will be based on real-time information, but the payment will be made at the end of a month in arrears. Therefore you have the problem of income-smoothing when you have unpredictable hours, and we know that the hours of 75% of people on ZHCs vary every week. That is why, going back to Clause 148, I ask how you can run a second job with unpredictable hours if your first job has unpredictable hours. Your two employers may want you at the same time, but neither employer may want you at another hour.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness makes a good point. In a sense, that is a problem for employers, who could previously have a zero-hours arrangement that was exclusive. As I explained in opening, we have decided that that should not be the case in future. I am sure that the new arrangements will take some thinking about and settling in but, as far as I am concerned, if you are on a zero-hours contract, you can offer your services to—I do not know—two fashion magazines rather than just one. That is an excellent move forward. In any event, many people on zero-hours contracts who benefit so much from them, especially those in the categories that we were talking about, are not looking for universal credit, as the noble Baroness acknowledged.
I have probably taken this as far as I can this evening. I have tried to set out why we are proposing this, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
“( ) Such workers shall be eligible for inclusion within the national insurance system where the relevant worker’s annual earnings exceed £3,000 per year.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, this is a probing amendment to analyse the relationship between the flexible labour market and the benefit system that is supposed to support it and which often fails to do so. Some 6 million people in this country have part-time or flexi-hour jobs, and well over 1 million—probably nearer 2 million—are on ZHCs. Most are on or around minimum wage. Unite estimates that half of all workers under 30—that is 3.75 million—are on ZHCs and other short-hour contracts.
As I have said in relation to a previous amendment, of those who are on a ZHC, 75% find that their hours vary every week; only one in five have the same hours and thus the same pay each week. Many do not know on Friday what hours and what pay they will get on Monday.
We have already discussed the abuses that workers may face: unpredictable hours, low pay—nearly 60% of those on ZHCs earn less than £500 per month, with no proper contract, no reliable income, shifts cancelled at an hour’s notice and no ability, which the Bill addresses, to work another job alongside it. There is one other downside that has been largely overlooked and which applies not only to ZHCs but to any part-time job: the interaction more fully with the benefits system. The CIPD, whose figures I have with me, found that 37% of people on ZHCs—that is, 400,000 people—as well as hundreds of thousands of others in short-hour jobs work fewer than 16 hours a week, most at or around minimum wage, in any one job. Tesco was recently recruiting some 800 staff. Ninety-six per cent of the vacancies were for part-time positions, deliberately designed to save the company paying employer national insurance and thus saving Tesco some £100 million a year, even though that left many of its employees without national insurance rights.
Snapshots of Jobcentre Plus show that the majority of jobs usually advertised are part-time, which can mean that those filling them do not come within the national insurance system. As I am sure the Committee knows, for you to come within the NI system you have to earn at least £5,700 in any one job, although you and the employer do not pay NI rates until you are earning at the primary tax threshold of £7,500. Cruelly, and completely irrationally, if under the new freedoms you run three £5,000-a-year jobs alongside each other—for example, cleaning, work in the lunchtime sandwich shop, local newsagent or launderette, or bar work—although your £15,000 income from your three £5,000 jobs is amalgamated for tax purposes it is not amalgamated for national insurance purposes and you are outside the system. I estimate that some 200,000 people are caught this way. We can argue the statistics but I have had the privilege of being a member of a working party on this subject, chaired by the IFS and set up by the Minister’s right honourable friend in the other place, Steve Webb.
The Bill rightly allows people to run two ZHC jobs alongside each other but that will substantially increase the number of people caught. Although their amalgamated income would take them over the NI threshold, because they have to earn more than £5,700 in any one job, they are still penalised. Such jobs are not temporary contracts for entry-level jobs. As my noble friend Lord Young said earlier, half of those doing them stay for more than two years and one-quarter stay for more than five years in such ZHCs.
Who are they? People can be credited into the national insurance system if they are unemployed and on JSA or ESA, if they have children under 12, if they are caring for older people for more than 20 hours a week or if their household income is so low that they will qualify for universal credit.
Who then is excluded from coming within NI? They may be young people living at home. Rather than live off benefit, which would bring them into NI, they are bravely patching together an income that does not. If you are unemployed you get NI, but if you piece a living wage together through two or three jobs then you do not.
They will, in particular, be middle-aged women with children over 12, whose partner’s income floats them off universal credit but who have one, or three, part-time jobs, all below the lower earnings limit, which they have fitted around their family life and caring responsibilities for years. Does it matter? Why am I banging on about this? Without NI, you lose statutory rights to sickness, holiday and maternity pay. Above all, you fail to build your 35 years towards a full state pension. This mattered less until the spring because, in the past, married women could derive a state pension from their husbands—the 60% dependency pension. In future they will not be able to get a pension through him, or through their own work, even if they are working 30 hours a week in three ten-hour jobs. They will go into retirement with much lower pensions. If you lose seven years of NI contributions, and many women in their 40s and 50s may be working without NI contributions for seven years or so, your state pension on retirement drops, on current figures, by £30 a week for the rest of your life.
I have tried, and I am still hopeful that another Government may be able, to amalgamate a couple of mini-jobs for NI purposes, just as they do for tax, to bring a worker into NI. I recognise that in the past the difficulties in doing this were with divvying up the employer’s contribution among two or three mini-job employers and collecting the appropriate information about hours of work. I acknowledge that those two roadblocks were real but we are allowing the self-employed to acquire the full new state pension without an employer’s contribution, so that problem has disappeared and, as the Minister has said, we are collecting real-time information for UC so we can track it all. We could therefore treat people with ZHCs as though they are self-employed or, if they are working less than 16 hours in any of their jobs but at least that in total, they could be regarded as meeting JSA work conditionality and be credited in. We could let older workers, especially women, revisit their national insurance record at the point of retirement to make good any shortfalls, whenever they had occurred, and not confine their ability to do that to the last six years of working life when family pressures—and, therefore, their exposure to a bundle of mini-jobs that did not bring them into NI—may well have occurred much earlier than this.
The coalition Government have, wrongly, refused all such possibilities. With this amendment, I am trying another path to again get people on ZHCs into the national insurance system. Revisit the lower earnings limit, the point at which you come into national insurance. It is currently £5,700 but you do not pay it until £7,500. You could abolish the LEL altogether. After all, if you are on JSA, ESA or UC you come into the national insurance system as of right, without paying a penny and, at that point, without working. It is therefore arguable that there is no point in the LEL any more. However, if that is too radical, I make a more modest suggestion that anyone earning £3,000 a year in any one job—that is £60 a week, or around 10 hours per week at minimum wage—should be credited into NI. A few weeks back, I tabled a Written Question asking what the net cost of this would be, given that so many people are credited into NI without any wage from work. I did not expect it to be high. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, helpfully replied that the information was not available, which I find hard to believe. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Newby, here; perhaps by now the Minister has had the datasets sorted. That is the reason for this probing amendment.
More positively, we know that the best predictor of anyone in a full-time job is that they held a mini-job the year before, and that a zero-hours contract job of around 10 hours may be a stepping stone back into the labour market for older women. It may, over time, add to our tax and NI receipts.
However, the real case for the amendment is a moral one. We are—some of us—happy to have a flexible labour market in which all the risk passes to the worker, who is then exposed to an exploitative labour market and a rigid and inflexible social security system. Even with this Bill, and even being able to work a couple of ZHCs together—which will be difficult, given that you cannot predict the hours in either of them—you still have to get above the LEL in any one of them to come within NI, so the risks of losing years of your state pension accrual remain.
The flexible labour market will send hundreds of people into retirement with an incomplete state pension, simply because issues such as these are off the Government’s radar. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry—I did not understand that sentence at all. Would the noble Lord care to explain to me why somebody on £60 a week would be in the contributory system, while somebody on £110 would not?
Lord Newby
I am drawing the distinction between somebody who is on a zero-hours contract at that level of income and somebody on a higher level of income, on a straightforward contract, which might pay £5,000 a year. The noble Baroness’s amendment deals solely with people on zero-hours contracts—that is what the clauses deal with.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
No—that is not a correct statement. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that this is a problem. My amendment says:
“Such workers shall be eligible for inclusion within the national insurance system”,
and that does not exclude others. I would obviously expect, as the noble Lord absolutely rightly recognises, that that would apply to people on ZHCs. However, as I made very clear in my opening remarks, this affects all those on short-hour or part-time contracts, where in any one job they are not over £5,700, but could by aggregation or in this way, by lowering the LEL, come within the NI system. If we believe in encouraging people into work, we should do this.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I was not suggesting that the amendment would exclude the possibility of further provisions being made for people who are not on zero-hours contracts. However, the amendment would amend a clause that deals specifically with zero-hours contracts—that is what the Bill deals with. It is not dealing with people who are on straightforward contracts for, say, five hours a week. That is the point I am making, that this is partial. I am not saying that that means it is worthless; I am simply saying that it is a partial solution, even if the Government were to accept it.
I reiterate what both noble Baronesses have said, that individuals with earnings below the lower earnings limit, whether on zero-hours contracts or not, are not without some protections already. At the highest level, individuals have to reach the lower earnings limit in only 30 years of a 49-year working life to qualify for a full state pension. Those who reach state pension age from 6 April 2016 will require an additional five years. That means that the individual can fall below this limit for a significant number of years—up to 14—and not be penalised in retirement.
Of course, there are also the other protections, which both noble Baronesses have referred to. Not only income that is above the lower earnings limit counts towards eligibility for a full state pension. Many national insurance credits also count towards that entitlement. For instance, NI contributions can be credited where a person is unable to work full-time due to ill health or because of caring responsibilities. These can be awarded to those receiving certain benefits, such as child benefit or working tax credits, to help build entitlement to a state pension. While we cannot be certain, it is highly likely that many individuals whom the noble Baroness is seeking to benefit are getting national insurance credits during those years in their working life where their earnings fall below the lower earnings limit.
I know that the noble Baroness is keen to make changes as soon as possible, but more work is clearly needed to understand the full extent of the issue. In any event, as I have said, this amendment, which deals only with zero-hours contracts, does not and would not resolve the issue entirely in the way that the noble Baroness wishes. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to continue working closely with the DWP and HMRC on this matter so that they can have the benefit of her very considerable experience and we will eventually reach a satisfactory solution. However, I submit that the way we should do that is not through this Bill and this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I thank my noble friend Lord Young, and especially my noble friend Lady Drake for her powerful speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made three points in reply to which I need to respond. The first was that work was in hand on the working party chaired by the IFS—which, as I said, his right honourable friend Steve Webb set up—on how best the problem should be addressed. Not so. We were told explicitly that all that we could do was collect the data on how many people might be affected, not come up with any policy recommendations. I noticed that when I suggested half a dozen, they were not included in the minutes.
I would be delighted to have the wider remit that the Minister suggested, because that would indeed allow us to take the issue forward. Instead, it has hung around his second point, which is the number coming from DWP of 50,000 as opposed to my figure of 200,000. I am not sure about the propriety of my citing this information in the Moses Room, but if he checks the minutes and the additional information based on research of P14s from HMRC and his department, he will probably find that it is estimated that 130,000 people will be above the current LEL in any one pay period, which could be a week or a month, but over the course of the year will be below LEL, so they are in addition to the 50,000. In addition to that, it was suggested to the working party that about 30,000 or more, possibly far more, are untouched or uncaught because they work for very small employers—the newsagent’s shop, and so on—and are not within the PAYE system. Put those figures together and you get to more than 200,000, my original figure of some two months ago.
The Minister’s third point was that the amendment was very partial and that there was a wider problem with part-time workers more generally. I absolutely agree; he is right. I will be delighted if, as a result, I have persuaded him that the Government need to come back on Report with a comprehensive amendment, a freestanding clause which will address the issue more widely. I invite him to do so, because that is what he has been suggesting and would be consistent with his position in his reply.
At the core—okay, we are arguing between ourselves —is that it cannot be right, first, that someone who is not employed comes into the national insurance system but someone who may be working 30 hours a week cannot do so. Secondly, it cannot be right that when we have a flexible labour market—we have all agreed that a flexible labour market in a 24/7 economy is necessary—all the risks, including the risk of losing a sizeable chunk of your state pension, should fall on the shoulders of the worker, usually a middle-aged woman. That cannot be right. I regard it as immoral. If we want a flexible labour market, and most of us accept that there is a need for it in places, we should ensure that the national insurance system supports those people to do what the rest of us want, wearing our hats as consumers. If we do not, I think that we are behaving immorally. I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister would agree.
I am very happy to continue to discuss numbers on the working party. I am very happy that the Minister will recommend to his right honourable friend that we enlarge the terms of reference of that committee and therefore come up with policy recommendations, and I would be very happy if the Minister were minded to produce some of those recommendations on Report as a government amendment. I would then be very content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, I believe absolutely that they have. If I am wrong in that, obviously I will write to the noble Lord; but that is the purpose of having initially produced the figures on salary sacrifice and subsequently revised them.
I turn to the other elements of the amendments. Amendment 30B also seeks to require that the Government review the distributional impact of pensions flexibility, no less than 18 months after the Bill takes effect. As set out during debate of the Taxation of Pensions Act, pensions flexibility does not have a direct consequential impact on household incomes. Distributional effects will be driven by the choices that individuals make about how and when to take their pensions. In addition, household income is not necessarily a reliable measure of pension wealth, particularly in the years immediately prior to retirement. It is possible that the impacts of this policy could be misrepresented if we were to review them only against the distribution of household income.
Additionally, Amendment 30B would require the Government to publish behavioural analysis. The costing of tax policies often involves an assessment of the behavioural impact of the measure and, in some cases, the capacity for additional tax planning and avoidance behaviour. These assumptions and methodologies are, of course, certified by the independent OBR. However, as a matter of policy, the Treasury considers that making these detailed behavioural assumptions public can have the potential to affect the behaviour they relate to, and as such can be potentially detrimental to policy-making. The policy costing note published alongside the Autumn Statement explains how the costings have been calculated. This is in line with the principles outlined in the government document Tax Policy Making: A New Approach, which was published alongside the June Budget in 2010.
Amendment 30B would also require the Government to review any impact that pensions flexibility might have on the volume of annuity purchases. Data on the sales of annuities will continue to be available through other channels, such as the data published by trade bodies such as the ABI and publications by individual firms. Therefore we do not think that there is going to be any lack of this information being publicly available, so there is no need for a requirement in the Bill to achieve that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister saying that the information will be available to departments but that the Government do not wish to publish it because of the behavioural implications it may have, or is he saying that it is too soon to gather that information and therefore they will not actually do so? The problem with the second position is that this change is such that it is almost impossible to change policy direction once it is embedded because of the nature of the policy changes, which to my mind are extravagantly at risk. As a result, the Minister is denying Parliament the opportunity to make the modifications before that degree of risk is permanently embedded in public policy.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I was saying that the Government have made an assessment of behavioural changes and they have produced figures which take those changes into account. Therefore, there has been a full assessment of the behavioural changes as best as can be done in advance of the change coming into effect. As I said, it is Treasury policy not to publish those assumptions but that work has been done. In terms of the cost to the Exchequer of this policy change, the figures were published at the time of the Budget and were subsequently revised, as I set out, at the time of the Autumn Statement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
In that case, my Lords, the Minister is saying that we are being given the assumptions that go into the forecasts but we are not going to be given the information to see whether those forecasts are accurate.
Lord Newby
I am saying that in a whole raft of areas, no doubt under successive Governments, the Treasury has made behavioural assumptions. When I used to work in Customs and Excise, that was certainly the case when asking what would happen if the duty on whisky was put up. A whole raft of behavioural assumptions is made in policy-making and I do not think that it has been the policy to make those behavioural assumptions public. What obviously has been, and will remain, policy is to set out the impact of those behavioural changes. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Perhaps when she was a Minister behavioural assumptions were made available. My understanding is that that has not been the policy but I will go back to the Treasury and check.
Pension Schemes Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Best. In doing so, I declare my interest as an unremunerated member of the advisory committee for the Equity Release Council. I am, I hope, still in extended middle age, which is a new term that I fully endorse.
Housing wealth, along with other assets, means that the guidance is crucial given the disparity between the amount that people tend to have in a DC pot and their housing wealth, which on average is more than 10 times as much. That is a considerable amount of money or resource which people will need to take into account. The FCA standards, which were helpfully published this morning by the Treasury, state that:
“In terms of content, the standards require that the guidance session must … request information about the consumer’s financial and personal circumstances that is relevant to their retirement options”.
That requires the adviser who is going to take people through the guidance session to ask them for information about their housing wealth, but it is not explicit in the standards, and while we know that they are nearly finalised, there is time for the Treasury to make them more transparent about what is required. Because of the relationship between the two amounts of money, the instruction ought to be clarified, perhaps not in the document but in the training so that it is always an issue which people take on board. Will the Minister indicate whether the sentence in the FCA standards set out in the document produced this morning by the Treasury implies that housing wealth, savings and investments will be taken into account? Will he consider making it more explicit in the information that is provided to the consumer and to those providing the guidance?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister a question which is triggered by the important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. However, I want to look at it from the other way round, which is the situation of someone who is 55, is on housing benefit, and has £20,000 locked away in a small pension pot. At the moment, if you have capital of more than £16,000 and you are pre-retirement, that is an absolute block to any further income-related benefits. Different rules apply when you come to retirement. The assumption throughout is that you can access your pension only at the point of retirement, when different rules apply. What will happen now? Can the Minister help us on this? The rules are that if you have capital that you could get at if you applied for it, you are treated as having that capital. While it was tucked away in a pension and not accessible until you reached 60 or 65, you could not have access to it and so it did not affect your entitlement. But in future you will be able to access your capital in such a way that, under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Regulation 49(2), because you can access your capital, you are treated as though you have that capital, which would therefore automatically cut you off at £16,000—you have £20,000 in your pot —from any access to housing benefit. Can the Minister clarify how this will work in the future?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for giving me the chance via the debate on these amendments to address a number of important issues in respect of the guidance service. I turn first to Amendment 34. This seeks to require an annual report on consumer outcomes. As I said in the earlier debate, in terms of the overall policy of greater flexibility, the Government are committed to keeping the policy under continual review, including through the monitoring of information collected on tax returns and tax records. This was confirmed in the debates in the other place late last year on the Taxation of Pensions Bill, which it then was.
How the market evolves to respond to consumer needs is where the regulators come in, in particular the Financial Conduct Authority. As I mentioned earlier in addressing the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bradley and Lord McAvoy, the FCA has a strategic objective to ensure that the markets function well and a specific operational objective to ensure that consumers of financial services are appropriately protected. The FCA has recently published the provisional findings of its Retirement Income Market Study. In this report, the FCA committed to monitor the retirement income market, and if consumers appear not to be getting the support or products they need or if competition is failing to drive good value, it will make whatever intervention is appropriate. The noble Baroness will, I hope, be reassured by the specific commitment of the FCA to monitor consumer outcomes,
“we will monitor the market to track developments to assess whether these risks arise and if so, the impact on consumer outcomes”.
I am also grateful for the related amendment from the noble Baroness which seeks to expand the new duty of the FCA to protect consumers using guidance through its role in setting and monitoring standards for the provision of pensions guidance by designated guidance providers. The noble Baroness raised again the question asked earlier about the supervision of guidance and the respective roles of the FCA and the Treasury. To be clear, the FCA has the responsibility for supervising designated guidance providers’ compliance with the standards which it has set. While the Treasury itself is not a designated guidance provider, it has committed in the update published today that it will fully comply with the FCA standards as far as that is appropriate, because the Treasury is responsible for the online channel.
More generally in respect of the FCA and its powers, the noble Baroness will know, I am sure, that the Financial Services Act 2012 gave the FCA wide-ranging product intervention powers. For the first time it is equipped to ensure that new retirement income products are designed and sold in a way that does not cause detriment to consumers. As for assessing the consumer outcomes resulting from the guidance service specifically, with which Clause 3 is concerned, I can assure the noble Baroness, as I have already the noble Lords, Lord McAvoy and Lord Bradley, that the Government are committed to a full programme of monitoring and evaluation of the guidance service, which will encompass the delivery partners’ provision to ensure that the service is operating effectively and successfully in supporting people in their retirement decision-making.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The point is that housing benefit is the one benefit that continues in its current form both before and after retirement. Nearly all other benefits change at the point of retirement. Therefore, the issue does not arise. For example, there is no assumption that there is a capital cut-off if you are on pension credit, merely an assumed tariff income. What you are doing now is introducing some of the potential privileges associated with protecting pensions to a pre-pension age. If you do that, that is fine, but if you do not, it means that housing benefit will be wiped out for someone who has capital that they can access, even if they choose not to do so. As the current rules stand, they would have to be treated as if they had accessed that capital, and then housing benefit would be wiped out for someone at the age of 55 in the way it would not be wiped out if that person was 65.
National Minimum Wage
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the fall in value in real terms of the National Minimum Wage since 2010, what assessment they have made of any additional cost to the Exchequer in tax credits and other benefits.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, in the evidence that it submitted to the Low Pay Commission in January this year, the Treasury looked at the impact of increasing the national minimum wage to £7. It estimated that overall net borrowing would be reduced by between £30 million and £70 million. The figure is relatively low because there would be an increase in social security spending as a result of fewer jobs, higher prices and lower corporation tax receipts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, last year HMRC failed to collect more than £250 million as a result of the failure to keep pace with the minimum wage. Work is no longer the route out of poverty; the majority of those in poverty are now in work. This is living wage week and the living wage is, rightly, voluntary, but it would save HMRC more than £3 billion a year in reduced benefits and increased tax revenues and, above all, it would make work pay. DWP pays the living wage but HMRC, with 25,000 fewer staff, does not. Why not?
Health and Social Care in England
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, as we know, social care, health and social security expenditure is being driven by the growing number of the elderly. It accounts for two-thirds—£110 billion—of our welfare budget. As local authorities face 50% cuts, we are none the less going to need 65% more hours of care from the same number of working-age people in the next 15 years.
People talk airily about the extra life expectancy since Beveridge’s time—it was then five years after retirement; it is more than 20 years now. They argue that there should be a fixed proportion of adult life for retirement—let us say 30%—and that the pension age should rise accordingly, saving some £15 billion a year. However, the health and social care statistics should give us pause for thought. Those extra years are not enjoyed as years of good health but are years of chronic disability. At 65, we may enjoy a decade of good health, followed by a decade of growing but chronic disability, such as arthritis and diabetes, impairing our ability to walk, to reach, to see and to hear. Finally, there are perhaps two to five years—this has not changed much—of conditions involving heavy dependency, including Alzheimer’s, with substantial personal care needs.
The years of extra life, therefore, are largely extra years of chronic disability, but it is heavily class-specific. The better-off will live longer in good health—and they include those commentators who seek to encourage the raising of the state pension age—but for everyone else, those extra years of life will be added to the years of chronic disability. In my city, in two wards that are one mile apart, there is 11 years’ difference in life expectancy and 15 years’ difference in healthy-life expectancy. The gap is widening. It is deeply unfair to raise the state pension age and reduce the good years of retirement for most of the population.
I doubt that we can significantly extend the decade of healthy-life retirement for most people, but we can make the next decade, of disability, qualitatively better. What must we do? Measures include adapted housing and equity release—only £0.5 billion of the £2 trillion locked away in property of the over-55s is being released each year. Decent state pensions under the new Pensions Bill will provide funding for heating, food and mobility. We also need to fund social care adequately and intervene early.
Can we afford it? We spend £62 billion a year on the state pension and more than £40 billion on pensions tax relief—a shadow welfare state for the well-to-do. It is outrageous really. We have three ages of man—work, early good-health retirement and later disabled retirement. We need to smooth income not just from work to retirement, as we do, but between early retirement and later retirement as well, which we do not do.
Standard tax rate relief on pensions and/or treating pensions like ISAs would release £7 billion or £8 billion a year. If that money was then ring-fenced for later-life social care, redistributing it not only from work to retirement but from younger, healthier, wealthier pensioners to the older and frailer among us, I think that it would command support. Raising the cap on employees’ national insurance, now frozen at the higher rate, would raise a further £11 billion.
There is money; it is about our political choices and our priorities. With a sufficient state pension which is coming, with the redistribution of money from pensions into social care, with the adaption of our homes for safer living, partly funded from equity release, and with a more courageous attitude to integrating hospital, primary and social care, we can cope. Half of the growth of the older old is indeed due to increased longevity, but half is due to the post-war baby boom. In a decade or so we shall be through that baby boom and in a better worker-pensioner support ratio than almost all other European countries—until the next baby boom, that is, which has just begun, but that is a problem for the 2070s and our great-grandchildren.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, there is no one in this Chamber who would not like to see support for those on low incomes and families to be increased. What was striking when the noble Lord proposed this amendment was that, apart from a vague suggestion that it might be possible to find the money by pursuing tax evaders, there was no indication of where the £3 billion needed to provide uprating in line with inflation—assuming the Government’s forecasts are correct—could be found. That is deeply irresponsible and it is particularly irresponsible of an Opposition who will not say what they would do in government. In other words, while it is not their responsibility, their line is “You should spend the money”, but when it might be their responsibility, they are not prepared to say what they would do. That is completely dishonest politics.
We have a dangerous position in our country, partly caused by the present Government constantly harping on about how they have reduced the deficit by a quarter. According to a poll carried out by ITN and a separate poll by the Centre for Policy Studies, which may not be quite so objective, when asked the question, “Do you think by the end of this Parliament the national debt will have gone up by £600 billion, be just the same, or will have gone down by £600 billion?” only 6% got the answer correct: that it will have gone up by £600 billion. So here we are, living in a country where we have to make difficult decisions—this Bill is an example of having to make difficult decisions—and where the vast majority of people believe that the Government are cutting debt, when in fact all the Government are doing is reducing the amount by which the debt is increasing. I will wager that when we have a debate at the end of this Parliament and come the next election, the Opposition will pursue the same kind of irresponsible tactics which we see in this amendment. They will say, “The Government were elected to reduce the debt, but the debt has gone up by 50%. If we had been in government, it would have been different”. That is the politics of it.
Let us look at it from the point of view of people on low incomes—working or non-working—faced with inflation. If we follow the prescriptions contained in this amendment, the consequence will be that the pound will sink still further. The consequence of the pound sinking still further is that the energy and fuel costs that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke of will go up. So how does it help people who are struggling to say “Your benefits will go up by inflation” if at the same time you pursue policies which will result in higher inflation and higher debt and leave an even bigger problem to solve at the end of the day, which will be solved on the backs of the poor?
The noble Lord said that the Government are handing out a tax-free benefit to the very rich. I remind him that when his party were in government, people on very high incomes were paying less in marginal rates of tax than they are now. I also remind him that the effect of cutting the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% will be, as has been proved over and over again in countries around the globe, that the revenue to the Treasury will go up. Although the noble Lord and his party quite rightly point to the excesses in the City arising from bonuses, and so on, they seem to forget that 52% of those obscene bonuses come back in tax and national insurance. Actually, it is more, because there is an employers’ contribution of 12%, so 64% of those bonuses come back to the Treasury in revenues.
The name of the game here is to increase revenues to the Treasury. Then we will be in a position to do something about welfare. We are now in this difficult position and my noble friend is having to take this painful legislation through the House. The Opposition should recognise that that is a consequence of their period in government. The noble Baroness shakes her head. While they were in government, welfare benefits went up by 60% in real terms.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, makes the point that a large percentage went to pensioners, but I do not hear from the opposition Front Bench a cry that we should cut the benefits to pensioners to avoid this position. The very fact that she says that from a sedentary position indicates that she accepts that.
Whatever the merits of how the money was distributed, it went up by 60%. One pound in every £4 which this Government are spending—by the way, that is money which we have not got because we are having to borrow £150 billion every year to make that expenditure—is going to welfare. To argue that it is not necessary to constrain welfare expenditure in those circumstances is, frankly, totally irresponsible. It is the worst kind of politics.
The noble Lord seeks to present people on this side of the House as uncaring and unconcerned about the poor whereas, actually, if you are concerned about people who are hard up, you want to make sure that the costs of living for them and the stoppages in their pay packet are reduced to as low a level as possible. If we follow those prescriptions of continuing to spend money we have not got, of continuing to pay more in welfare than people are gaining in increased incomes in the private sector, that is the road to Carey Street and to undermining our whole welfare system of support.
The truth is that while Labour was in office, it was paying tax credits to people on up to £50,000 a year. It was a policy deliberately designed to create a client state, and it was a policy funded on the back of a bubble created by holding down interest rates. It was irresponsible economics and it was irresponsible public expenditure. A responsible Government, faced with the windfall tax revenues that they had, would have put some aside for a rainy day. Now we find ourselves with a huge, exploded welfare budget and difficult decisions that need to be taken.
I hope that the House will reject the amendment which, while we all appreciate the sentiment, would actually do down those who are hardest up in our society and having the most difficulty. The noble Baroness shakes her head. It is the consequence of spending money which we did not have.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am happy to give way to him if he wants to explain where the money would come from, but I suspect not. A large part of his flock of the clergy will be recipients of benefits because of the wages that they are paid by the Church of England. Everyone is in the same boat here. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, argues that somehow it is possible to find money which we have not got and that she is proud to support the amendment because of the reduction in the top rate of tax paid by those who she describes as millionaires. I remind her that those people are paying 5% more in tax than they did under her Government. I also remind her that the effect of cutting those high rates of tax has been to increase revenue and therefore to make it possible to do more in that respect.
Surely, by now, we have learnt that lesson. It is a cheap political argument to say that it is possible to create money out of thin air and that this Government want to protect the rich at the expense of the poor. If we want to help the poor, we have to get the economy growing again. The noble Baroness says that the economy is not growing because of this Government. The economy is not growing because of the burden of debt which she and her fellow members of the Labour Party ran up.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. My criticism was that he did not say which of these he wanted to do. If the church’s position is that it wants to tax winter fuel benefits, please say so and say that the money from that could be used for this purpose. As for increasing taxes on pension contributions, he may not have noticed but the Government have already done that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I would have thought that the right reverend Prelate’s point was that we are facing political choices, not ones of financial necessity. We can make choices here and we are choosing instead to go after poor children.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the answers they have given each other on this. It really is not my duty, as a Prelate in this House, to give the church’s view on exactly how the money should be raised. It is a task to say that there are alternatives and, indeed, to make suggestions as to how the money might be raised. There is no policy on exactly how it should be and I do not think that it would be for me to try to produce the solution to what we are doing. There are alternatives. I do not believe that they should be placed on children.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord and I both have our crosses to bear in the coalition. I am grateful for his confirmation that he does not support the principle. This is just a very clever device to try to get us back to where we started from without making a commitment to spend money. The amendment states that the provisions in the Bill which limit the benefit increases to 1% can be set aside if inflation reaches 3%. That is for very good reasons. The noble Lord argues the case about people on low incomes and the effects of inflation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Masham, in their amendment, have highlighted the desperate impact that inflation has on cancer patients who are not working.
The best way to protect those people is to ensure that inflation does not rise to 3%. The idea that it is inevitable that inflation will rise to 3% is deeply damaging.
If the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, wishes to interrupt, I will be happy to give way, but otherwise I would be grateful if he did not make remarks from a sedentary position, which is distracting me from my argument—which of course, was his intention.
The best way to protect people is not to have inflation. One thing that sets inflation running uncontrollably is people’s expectations of inflation. When the noble Lord makes a speech saying, “I think that inflation is going to be more than 3%”, people hear that and think, in their wage negotiations, “Lord Kirkwood says that it will be more than 3%; the Government say that it will be two and a bit per cent”. Expectations drive the inflation rate, and inflation is devastating for the poorest in our society and for people on fixed incomes.
Therefore, we need to follow a policy that will limit the possibility of large increases in inflation. That is where we have a problem. To do that, we must show that we have control of public expenditure and have plans in place that can be relied on.
If the amendment were accepted, anyone looking at the Government’s plans for financial responsibility over the next two years would say, “They have marked down that social security and benefit payments will be this, but, of course, because of Lord Kirkwood’s amendment we cannot rely on that because if inflation is above that figure, the Secretary of State will need to take a decision”. They will note that he will be taking a decision in the run-up to an election and will therefore draw conclusions about what the pressures on the Secretary of State might be.
The amendment drives a coach and horses through the Government’s finances for anyone looking at whether they can rely on the Government delivering.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can the noble Lord help me? Is he arguing that the best way to protect people against inflation is to have no protection against inflation?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes, got it in one. The one thing that we learnt in the 1970s was that indexation, like other palliatives, is absolutely disastrous, because it sets the ball rolling, which gets faster and faster with people chasing inflation. Of course that is exactly what I am arguing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
If the noble Lord follows that argument through, is he therefore saying that, should inflation happen, that is just tough luck, and the poor cannot not have the possibility of any protection from the Secretary of State doing what he would now do, which is to consider all the options in the circumstances?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have the highest regard and respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She knows more about social security and understands the issues better than anyone else. I wish that she was on the Front Bench. If she was, she would be putting forward alternative proposals that might be more attractive and meet some of the points that are being considered, but she is not on the Front Bench and there are no alternative proposals.
We have to contain public expenditure not to within our means, because we are spending more than our means; the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out that the Government are already borrowing and spending £200 billion more than was planned. I am simply arguing that if we continue like this the pound will continue to sink. The cost of energy, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood pointed out, is a major cost for families, will go up. He supports windmills and other forms of energy generation that are the most expensive known to the planet and which are put on people’s bills without their knowledge as a tax and add to the pressure on these families. That is another example of where, if he is worried about poor households, he should abandon his attachment to windmills and other things that are raising energy costs and adding to inflation. The name of the game is to contain inflation by not having daft policies such as windmills and other energy policies. It is to act in a responsible way so that people will not decide that they do not wish to buy government debt, which is already a problem, and will not result in further pressure on the exchange rates.
I am sympathetic to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has made and with which the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Masham, are concerned in respect of the people who are affected. The problem is that the remedy that they propose would make things much worse. It is not a good place to be. We would prefer not to have started from here, but it was Mr Gordon Brown who put us in this position, ably assisted by the noble Baroness, and we must sort this mess out. Clever as it is, this amendment is a smart attempt to get round the basic purpose of the Bill, which is fundamental to protecting people on low incomes.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the first amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkwood would mean that the Bill would apply only if inflation was below 3% for the purposes of uprating in that year.
I shall provide a reminder of what the official inflation forecasts currently show. While inflation is forecast to be above target—that is, 2% in the near term—it will fall back towards the target in the medium term. In the final year of the Bill, the current forecasts show that inflation for the purposes of uprating in that year will be 2.2%. That was the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the Autumn Statement. The OBR produces independent and authoritative forecasts for the economy and public finances and we take decisions based on them.
However, the OBR is not alone in forecasting that inflation will fall back to target in the medium term. That is also the view of other major economic forecasters. I refer to the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England. Indeed, the latest assessment of independent forecasters in February was that UK inflation would be 2.2% in the 12 months to quarter 1 of 2014 and in the 12 months to quarter 1 of 2015. That is an average assessment of people who make their living by doing this job.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that he thought there was a 50% chance of inflation being over 3% in the period covered by the Bill. I remind the House that that means a 50% chance that inflation will be over 3% by September 2014, because that is the last point at which the Bill has an effect in terms of benefit uprating. All I can say to my noble friend, for whom I have the greatest regard, is that his view is just not shared by any reputable international or national body that is making forecasts about inflation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
In that case, why do the Government have any problem in accepting this amendment?
Lord Newby
I am coming on to that. In fact, I will deal with it now. It is relevant to the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. The purpose of the Bill, as we have debated about 20 times since Second Reading, is to give some certainty to the Government’s fiscal plans. The reason we are doing that is that a number of international bodies and rating agencies have said that this has a specific and significant impact on the way that they view the UK’s prospects. Entrenching something in a Bill has the effect of giving a degree of certainty, which is immensely useful with regard to the markets.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said, there seems to be a sense that the markets think that we in the UK are in a very good position and that a little tweak here and there in terms of borrowing will make no difference. That is not the way the markets work. It starts off with a little tweak and then the markets feel that something is going wrong. Once that feeling takes hold, the markets can move very quickly.
As we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, it does not need much of an increase in inflation to make a huge difference to the Government’s finances and the lives of ordinary people.