Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

We have been having some gremlins today, but we will try to return now to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

Thank you. My sincere apologies: I am jinxed on the IT front today. I am on the phone.

I repeat the objections to the powers in Clause 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which became Section 6 of the Act, which I and others expressed during the passage of the Bill. I cited then the reports of our Delegated Powers Committee, which were rightly damning about the extent of these powers, which include Henry VIII powers.

The committee said in its 49th report of January 2019 that this provision was

“an inappropriate delegation of power”

and that

“the clear impression is that the Government are seeking these powers in order to avoid … having to prepare a detailed bill implementing their policy once it is settled, and any future arrangements with the EU are concluded”.

In its 22nd report of August 2020, the committee said that it was a “significant open-ended power”.

This statutory instrument fully illustrates the problem. If these regulations were just tidying-up measures, they could have been done under Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. In fact, they make new policy, and that should be done by primary legislation.

This instrument brings forward the day on which amendments will be made to primary legislation: the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and its Northern Ireland counterpart. The Explanatory Memorandum says that these amendments are

“for the purpose of implementing, and giving effect to, reciprocal agreements with international organisations”.

Such organisations include the EU.

Can the Minister tell us what other international organisations it is envisaged signing reciprocal agreements on social security with? Can she also tell us what will fill the void as far as the EU is concerned? As I said in Committee on the Bill, and I apologise for quoting myself:

“There is a range of possibilities for a future arrangement on social security co-ordination, from ‘skinny’ coverage … to something much more similar to the present coverage. The draft agreement that the UK Government published in May 2020 was quite limited. They already said that they would stop the export of child benefit, and expect that arrangements regarding disability and unemployment benefits will change and are less likely to be comprehensive in future. They forecast that some benefits would be available for a time-limited period.


Altogether, these would be quite substantial changes. One other that pensioners fear is the possibility of no uprating in pensions for UK citizens resident in EEA countries in future. Certainly, the draft text of the agreement published by the Government in May did not cover cash benefits other than state pensions. It also did not cover healthcare costs for pensioners in EEA countries, where they now get a so-called S1 form, which enables them to get healthcare coverage.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1363.]


I assume, as perhaps I did not understand at the time, that that issue is covered by regulations from the Department of Health.

Can the Minister now tell us what we can expect as content for a social security agreement with the EU? Can she also explain why these amendments to primary legislation will be made the day after this instrument is made, rather than on what the Government call IP completion day but the rest of us call the end of transition; namely, 31 December? By the way, if there is an implementation period for any deal that is reached this week, the Government will have a challenge as to what to call it.

The idea of the four fixing SIs was apparently to ensure that the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations were operable in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. Unless the Minister knows something I do not, whether the UK is leaving with or without a deal is currently unresolved. If we leave with a deal, might we again need the fixing SIs, and indeed the five EU regulations to come back into UK law?

The Explanatory Memorandum recalls that EU law, including the five social security co-ordination regulations, will continue to apply to the EEA citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement, and that hence that law continues to form part of domestic law for those purposes. Thus, the Explanatory Memorandum says that this instrument has no impact on anyone covered by the withdrawal agreement.

However, can the Minister explain how revoking the EU SSC regulations in this instrument ensures that they are retained in domestic law for the purposes of the withdrawal agreement? I have not understood—that is probably my limitation—how those Chinese walls work legally and legislatively.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could explain a little more how the savings in Part 3 of this statutory instrument are to work. She referred to this in her opening speech, but I do not quite understand how we revoke the amendments for some purposes but we save them for others. It is a bit of a jigsaw, and I find myself in some difficulty in trying to understand it all.

Leaving those questions aside, the bigger issue is that what is created by the revocation of the five EU regulations which until now were retained law, along with revocation of the four fixing SIs of 2019, is a void. The Government propose to fill that void without any reference to Parliament whatever; they propose to use the amended power in the 1992 Act to implement by Order in Council any reciprocal social security agreements reached and to amend or modify retained EU legislation in order to give effect to them. So Parliament will have no role at all in assessing or agreeing such agreement, which is a perfect illustration of how the Brexit slogan of “take back control” meant only take back control for the Executive. This instrument, as foreseen by our Delegated Powers Committee, is a democratic travesty.

What proposals are there to consult the public and not just the Social Security Advisory Committee on the content and implementation of any new reciprocal agreement? Surely, the Government do not intend to shut out the public as well as Parliament. I thank noble Lords for tolerating my IT problems.

Bereavement Services

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the services offered by public and private sector organisations to bereaved people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, I know that this issue is very close to the noble Baroness’s heart, and I am pleased to have been able to meet with her to discuss it. It is absolutely right that we provide people with easily accessible support to help them through the difficult period following bereavement. The Tell Us Once service was introduced to develop effective partnerships and deliver linked services across local and central government. Noble Lords will be pleased and interested to hear that a survey showed that 98% of people who used the service were willing to recommend it to others, and that 98%, again, had an overall good experience.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply and for kindly meeting me beforehand, but I do press for real action. People who have lost loved ones—who are emotionally low and needing good, compassionate support—are too often faced with inefficient and slow services, increasing their stress at a time when many are prone to depression, as the charity Sue Ryder reports. The charities Cruse and Macmillan include in their reproaches financial firms with their disparate documentary demands, utilities firms and, I am afraid, the DWP. HMRC makes you fill out an inheritance tax form even when there is no such tax to pay. Should there not be one department or Minister to take responsibility, get a grip on all this, work with the campaigners I have cited, insist on slimming down and streamlining “bereavement bureaucracy” and deliver a much better deal for grieving people?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I fully appreciate the impact of a bereavement on individuals; I am sure that all noble Lords have had that at some point in their lives. We have talked about the Tell Us Once service. The noble Baroness—I am saying this respectfully—in true spirit raises a challenge. It is not one that we should dismiss, although people are saying that it cannot be done. I talked to Cruse yesterday after our meeting. It has a campaign called Bereaved Customers First, and it is trying to get banks, building societies, utility companies and other organisations to collaborate and to have what my pension friends would call a dashboard. I would like to speak to Cruse further. I urge the noble Baroness to carry on with this thinking. If it would help, I would be very happy to meet with her to take that forward.

Disabled People

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thomas for this debate and I appreciate being able to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London; it is an honour. I wanted to take part in this debate not only because it is a very important subject but because of my experience—my second-hand experience and observation—as the wife of a person with a physical disability; to be specific, a prosthetic leg, following a leg amputation three years ago. I want to focus on issues of accessibility in public places. I have become aware of how much still needs to be done in this regard.

Disability and limited mobility is the overlooked equality characteristic of all those covered by the equality legislation. Obviously there is a huge spectrum of conditions—we have heard about deafness, visual impairment as well as physical disability—but, when you add up all those involved, plus family members, a very high proportion of the population is affected. It is not a niche concern. A lot of us, even if not currently classified as having a disability, are either partners or members of the family of people who are, or can expect to be, in that category—and a lot of us will get frail in our older age. I think it was the right reverend Prelate who said that one in five people would have a disability as they got older.

I have been able to observe the challenges that my husband faces, and I will give an example. Obviously, people are in different situations, and those who are wheelchair users have their own challenges, but, as someone who is walking—though with difficulty—he gives us an example of the failure to think of those with limited ability to walk. He often takes a train from King’s Cross and requests assistance, but the information desk at which he has to report is further from the main entrance of the station than the platform to which he has to go. He is expected to walk a long way to the information desk for assistance. That is a lack of joined-up thinking about people’s needs. Hotels are another challenge, as getting a stool for the shower often takes some persuasion and, when provided, has been known to be too big to allow the shower door to close. It ought not to be exceptional to have to ask for these kinds of physical supports.

A lot of help would be given if handrails were more common. In one hotel in central London a handrail would have helped to get up a set of stairs. The person whom I asked said, “No, we are listed so we can’t have a handrail”. I would be surprised if the legislation on listed buildings prevented installing handrails. If it does, it needs to be changed. My point is that this kind of assistance would help a lot of people. It is not disability-specific; it could help a lot of people as we age and as we live longer.

Liberal Democrats are known as “pavement politicians”, but the appalling state of many pavements does not help those with limited mobility. I am sure it does not help those in wheelchairs and it certainly does not help those with a prosthetic leg. You also have to deal with the problems of more aggressive cyclists, skateboards and scooters on pavements. There needs to be more concern and awareness that many more of us will need much better accessibility in public places, not only now but as we get older.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill, the substance of which need not detain us terribly long. It is obviously useful if Macedonia becomes an observer in the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Is any progress being made on the name of Macedonia? I have not heard anything recently on that. FYROM is clearly not a name that will inspire a sense of identity. We have been on that issue for a very long time. Where are we in trying to make the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia simply Macedonia?

Regarding the tripartite social summit, I believe that the European Commission has decided not to take this opportunity for any fundamental changes in its remit or design, so this is just some tweaking in the light of the Lisbon treaty. Clearly, there is no reason to oppose or resist this in any way.

On process, can the Minister say whether this is required to be primary legislation under Section 8(3) of the European Union Act 2011? I did not have the pleasure of taking part in the debate on that legislation when it was going through, as I was a Member of the European Parliament at that point and was disqualified from sitting or voting in this House. Was it anticipated that this kind of issue would require primary legislation? Clearly, there were some meaty issues within the scope of the EU Act 2011, not least the one about a referendum if there were any significant transfers of powers to the EU. However, we now find that we are required to legislate under primary legislation for two matters such as these which have either cleared scrutiny beforehand in 2014 or would perhaps not even have required scrutiny. In fact, I am not clear whether they would even have required secondary legislation or just notification to the scrutiny committee. How necessary is it to have primary legislation now on these measures, and how many other such instruments might we expect in a year, for instance, to have to legislate on as opposed to clearing through scrutiny or even having secondary legislation? This almost makes a mockery of EU affairs and of the EU Act 2011.

I would be grateful for answers to those few questions about process. On the substance of the matter, there is no objection from these Benches.