Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is the trouble.

[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

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Monday 26th January 2015 Grand Committee

[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

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Monday 12th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Monday 12th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

National Minimum Wage

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Thursday 6th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[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?

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I support the non-existent amendment of my noble friend Lord Bach as it is key to the changes that we are having. We should not be discussing this Bill in isolation from the Welfare Reform Act that preceded it. They represent a package of cuts and changes that will bear very heavily on 5 million to 7 million people in this country—no light measure.

To follow my noble friend, it is worth reminding the House of what we discussed at Second Reading about the number of changes that will affect people who are receiving benefits, even though many of them are in work. Those changes will happen to them all at once. We will see a new structure of benefits, brought together in universal credit—that is a structure that I welcome—but it will be accompanied, as in this Bill, and in reducing benefit inflation to CPI, by serious cuts, which many benefit claimants will think is simply an error by the department. They will go frantic with concern in trying to rectify them. That is the second change.

The third change that we are going to see is to the new patterns of payment. For example, tenants of social housing who currently have their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord will now have it paid to themselves, looped through a bank account. Very often, given other pressures of finance, debts and so on, they may be in real difficulties in making that money over to the landlord at the end of the month. So there is a new pattern of payment, with which tenants must become familiar. They will also have monthly payment of benefit, when many of them have been used to weekly or fortnightly payments, and the payment will go to a single earner or person in the household and not split. Again, that is a major change.

All those changes—the new structure, the cuts, the new method of payment direct to tenants, and the monthly payments—will be handled by an IT system, when we know that 20% to 30% of the tenants wishing to claim benefit have no familiarity with IT at all. So what will they do? What they have always done is to seek legal advice from Citizens Advice, which in the past has been funded very substantially by the Lord Chancellor’s Department. CABs have received some 40% of their funding from the Lord Chancellor’s Department, but that has been cut, and they are now 40% short. As a result, those same people facing this sequence of changes, some of which I support, like universal credit, and some of which I deplore, will make their bids for benefit on the basis of an IT system, with which they are not familiar, instead of a paper trail. Where do they go? They cannot go to the traditional advice centres because the legal aid money that sustained them has been withdrawn in the worst, most foolish and most indecent economy of which I can conceive. I declare my interest as a chair of a housing association. I am having to appoint paid professionals to do the welfare advice, to be paid for out of increased tenants’ rents, which hitherto was provided by the skilled but unpaid volunteers of the CABs, which represented a real commitment to the big society to which we all give lip service and which, I fear, is too seldom observed in this House.

My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a foolish way to proceed and I regret very much that we were not allowed to debate this properly. I speak with some concern because, as a departmental Minister for eight years, I was responsible for tribunals before they went over, via Leggatt, to a generalised tribunal system. I sat in on those tribunals for DLA and other benefits. My noble friend is exactly right—I could see within five minutes whether the person coming before the tribunal had or had not received prior legal advice. If they had not, the appeal or discussion at tribunal took five times as long, with the chairman, as they were then called—now judge—trying to tease out the issues and establish whether it was a bona fide case, whether they could take it further and even whether the person was claiming against the right benefit. In some cases, they were complaining about an incapacity benefit when it should have been DLA, and I felt like jumping up and saying, “You’ve got the wrong benefit here—let’s start again”.

That is the situation here. We are transferring the pressure of the problem away from the point that is most approachable, accessible and value for money—local services in the community funded by legal aid—to the tribunal process itself and merely distributing the pressure over a longer time, at greater cost, with greater inaccessibility and greater difficulty for everyone to understand. That is a huge folly and, like my noble friend, I beg the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, at the risk of repeating arguments made in earlier debates, I remind the Committee of the context of the Bill. This country is still recovering from the most damaging financial crisis for generations. When this Government came to power, the state was borrowing £1 in every £4 that it spent. Even before the recession, the UK had the highest structural deficit in the G7 and between 1997 and 2010 welfare spending increased by some 60% in real terms. Welfare spending now accounts for more than a quarter of government spending: that is, more than £200 billion. The £1.9 billion of savings enabled by this Bill in 2015-16 is a necessary part of helping to reduce public spending, tackle the deficit and secure the economic recovery.

Amendments 1 and 9, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would remove the 1% uprating figure in the Bill in Clause 1 and Clause 2. The effect of these amendments would be to give the Government discretion over benefit levels on an annual basis in much the same way as under existing legislation. As I have already explained, we believe it is vital that we set out credible plans for the longer term. The Bill is needed to enable us to set out our uprating policy over several years so that we can be sure we will deliver those £1.9 billion worth of savings.

My speaking notes at this point said that this amendment would completely undermine that core purpose of the Bill. I was relieved, but not surprised, that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, used that very word to define the effect of these amendments. He said that the amendments would undermine and, indeed, negate the core purpose of the Bill. They would, and so a vote for these amendments would be equivalent to a vote against the Bill at Second Reading. I note that the amendments, while removing the 1% figure, do not suggest an alternative uprating metric. If we assume that the noble Lord’s intention is that we operate in line with the CPI, this would obviously not deliver the savings we are talking about. I remind the Committee that the £1.9 billion worth of savings that this Bill will generate in 2015-16 are equivalent to the salaries of about 45,000 nurses and about 40,000 teachers, so these are not negligible amounts, as some noble Lords have suggested, and the savings would have to be found somewhere else.

As I say, the amendments undermine the purpose of the Bill and, frankly, demonstrate a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on how we deal with the current economic situation. The Government believe that the main priority is to get spending under control, reduce the deficit and restore growth. The Bill helps us to achieve that. At the same time, we are implementing policies that make a real difference to people’s lives—people of the most modest means. Let me name just a few of them: universal credit; the pupil premium; reform of early years education; tackling problem debt; and lifting people out of paying income tax through raising the personal allowance. We believe that these policies are vital if we are to have a real and sustainable impact on poverty over the medium to longer term. We cannot simply focus on increasing incomes through welfare payments, lifting people just above the poverty line.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked me a number of questions about the impact assessment. I remind the Committee that we published a detailed impact assessment for the Bill, which includes details of the impact by family type, and have made public details of the impacts on relative child poverty. She asked whether we could delay the changes until we had a broader impact assessment that covered the impact on mental health, crime and, I think she said, social unrest. As regards the impact on crime, it seems to me that the noble Baroness is being completely unrealistic to believe that such an impact can be measured with any degree of precision. At the start of the downturn, most commentators believed that crime rates would rise substantially. If one had taken the average view of people in the know, that is what one would have put in an impact assessment. The truth is that crime rates have not risen substantially. They have fallen. I obviously welcome that. I make that point only to make the more general point that, while one can make an impact assessment that covers some things with a reasonable degree of precision, on other things—on crime, for example—it is impossible to do what the noble Baroness wants. That is why the impact assessment is couched in the terms that it is.

The noble Baroness asked about exceptions or exemptions from direct payment. We are not setting out the exemptions in the regulations because they will be based on individual needs and assessments. Individuals will work with an adviser via Jobcentre Plus. There will be personal budgeting support, which will contain two elements: money advice, to help people who cannot manage monthly payments, and alternative payment arrangements, which include rent paid direct to landlords, more frequent payments and payments split between partners. These will be undertaken on an individual basis.

I do not really want to get involved in a long macroeconomic discussion. I would like to get involved in one, but perhaps I might simply refer the noble Baroness to the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in the Financial Times last week. It seemed to explain extremely carefully and clearly why this downturn is not like the typical Keynesian downturn that we have seen in the past. I would commend that letter to all noble Lords who are looking for a primer on why the Government are following the line that they are.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. It is an issue about which all participants feel passionately and I can well understand why. I will try to respond to as many questions as possible, but let me begin by reminding the House of the purpose of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Stowell pointed out in her opening speech, this Government inherited an exceptional fiscal challenge. The financial crisis of 2008-09 resulted in the largest deficit since the Second World War and the UK experienced one of the deepest recessions of any major economy. Even before the recession began, the UK had the highest structural deficit of any country in the G7. This level of public spending was simply not sustainable. There are still tough choices to make. The savings from this Bill provide a significant contribution towards delivering the savings needed to ensure that spending is on a sustainable path. It is, of course, never an easy decision to take action on welfare spending and I understand only too well that the welfare system provides vital support to millions of people. I also understand that while benefit rates will rise in cash terms, they will be fall in real terms.

In these tough economic times, people have seen significant restraints in their pay across the public and private sectors. With welfare expenditure accounting for £1 in every £4 spent, it is simply unrealistic to think we can achieve the savings we need without taking further action on welfare. We have already had to take tough decisions on welfare spending in this Parliament, yet despite these, more than £200 billion was spent on welfare last year. Under the previous Government, spending for working-age people and children increased by around 60%—equivalent to an extra £1,400 cost per household in Great Britain. This is the context against which this Bill must be judged.

However, in making what we believe are necessary limits in welfare spending, I cannot stress enough that our motivation is not, to quote various noble Lords today, to “demonise”, to “stigmatise”, to brand the poor as undeserving, to impose a harsh ideology on them or to divide and rule. It is simply to help—albeit painfully—provide a sustainable platform for the public finances and the economy going forward. This is something that every citizen of the UK will benefit from in the longer term.

The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, asked me for an assurance or statement that the vast majority of benefits claimants were not skivers. I am extremely happy to give such an assurance. Nobody in your Lordships’ House believes that to be the case; all of us know only too many people who are working extremely hard to make ends meet. I particularly acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, about people on low incomes often having several jobs and still struggling to make ends meet. I acknowledge that that is the reality for many people in Britain today.

We have to return to the main point. If the savings from this Bill were not delivered here, they would have to be found somewhere else. That would mean additional pressure on other public services. To put this figure into context: £1.9 billion is equivalent to the salaries of about 45,000 nurses or around 40,000 teachers. To put it another way: it is equivalent to 500,000 primary school places. Anybody opposing the Bill needs to explain where the money is coming from.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, did the Minister and his colleagues make the same consideration when they decided to take £3 billion in tax relief and give it back to millionaires? Will that money not also have to be found for the 40,000 nurses and so on? Is he about to tell us?

[Lord Newby]

Do not worry, my Lords, I am coming to that. The implications of some of the speeches we have heard today are that we should not be making cuts at all, that no civilised society would, even in today’s circumstances, reduce public expenditure. For those who take that view, all I can say is that we simply cannot possibly agree. For those who accept that we should be reducing the deficit but disagree with these changes, my challenge is and remains this: what would they cut instead? The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was clear that she would reduce payments to pensioners—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, what I said was that I would scrutinise the tax relief available for the building up of pensions which costs £32 billion, of which at least £8 billion comes from the fact that people on higher rate incomes get higher rate tax relief. That is what I said I would scrutinise: not money from pensioners, but from the way that pension savings are artificially supported by tax relief, two-thirds of which goes to the better off.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for correcting me. In that case, and in view of her earlier intervention, I think that what she and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, are saying is that the money will be raised from the millionaires who, in their view, are getting a windfall benefit of £3 billion. I believe that that is what both noble Baronesses have said. But it is clear that either they have not read or they do not believe the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility which suggests that the impact of reducing the higher rate of tax from 50% to 40% is probably £100 million and may be negative. The Government therefore simply do not accept the figures which have been quoted against us. The figure of £1 billion a year to which I think the noble Baronesses have referred was based on an HMRC static comparison. What we know only too well is that given the chance of paying 40% or 50%, the rich—surprise, surprise—change the way in which they order their affairs. There is no pot of gold through a 50% tax rate. My view is that, frankly, the Opposition are all confusion about this.

In the Second Reading debate on the Bill in another place, the right honourable David Miliband was widely praised for saying:

“The Government have projected the cost of all benefits, all tax credits and all tax relief for the next few years, and I am happy to debate priorities within that envelope. I will take the envelope that they have set, but let us have a proper debate about choices, not the total sum—a priorities debate, not an affordability debate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/13; col. 217.]

The Government have set out their priorities, but frankly, Labour has not begun to set its out. I do not know whether the Opposition agree with David Miliband. I certainly do not know, within the context of overall expenditure cuts, what their priorities will be. We have decided to protect pensioners as a top priority; does Labour agree? We have decided to take millions of people out of income tax as an incentive to work; does Labour agree? We have decided that people on high earnings should no longer get child benefit; does Labour agree? If it does not—and on some of those points, I simply do not know whether it does or not—what other cuts is it proposing in order to keep within the Government’s spending envelope, or within the terms of its own Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010 which committed the Government to halving government borrowing by the 2013-14 financial year. We look forward to hearing the answers, but it is clear that we are not going to hear them today.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Newby

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords—

[Lord Newby]

My Lords—