Pensions Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)
My Lords, I should explain to the Committee that a number of amendments that I have tabled to the Bill have been tabled after I have had a fairly lengthy discussion with the pensions officer of the union Unite, of which I am a member. As the Committee will probably know, for many years, I was a national officer of one of the founding unions of Unite, and that is where I come from on pensions. The union has always been very interested in pension provision, and the amendments have been tabled as a result of discussion with large sections of the membership.
This amendment arises because of the exclusion of certain people from the capital altogether. The reform proposed in the Bill has been brought forward at a time when half of all existing pensioners qualify for means-tested benefits and one-third of all pensioners with incomes below the guaranteed credit level for pension credit are not getting the benefits.
I am told that there is huge resentment among today’s pensioners that they are being ignored, and special resentment on the part of those who feel that they might have benefited from the new legislation but have lost out because of the cliff edge presented by the effect of the April 2016 date.
For those reasons, I tabled the amendment that the subsection should be deleted. As I understand it, the policy of the union is that government policy ought to be focused on raising the level of the basic state pension for all pensioners. That is what the union is standing on at the moment. It is for that reason, and to test the feeling of the Government on the issue of the concern of existing pensioners, that I have tabled the amendment. I also fully support Amendment 2, with which it has been grouped, because, again, it is concerned with the poverty of existing pensioners, which is something we should all be concerned about. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I shall respond where I can. I think that I shall have to write on the future of the savings credit as a result of an earnings increase of guaranteed credit, as it is quite complicated. At this stage, I shall also have to write to confirm exactly where we are on the question of whether the figure is gross or net. In practice, I think that I will end up writing quite often on these figures because they are quite complicated and one wants to double-check them carefully. Offering responses on the hoof may be a little dangerous and I shall be reduced to writing more often than would be the case with some of the other things that we discuss. With those issues raised and with a process to deal with them, I again ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank everybody who has participated in this debate, which has been very interesting. It has demonstrated that there really is a bit of a problem here with current pensioners who feel that they have been neglected, and I think that they have some justification for feeling that. I am very interested in what the Minister had to say, particularly on pension credit. I shall look at that very carefully when we have the opportunity to read what he has said this afternoon.
I am surprised that there has not been a rather better reception for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Quite frankly, I cannot see what there is for the Government to lose by having an annual review of pensioner poverty. I should have thought that it would be a very good idea, and it would certainly ease some of the concerns that pensioners have at the moment. In the mean time, I shall withdraw the amendment—
Lord Freud
I want to make it absolutely clear, if I did not do so in my answer, that that information is provided annually. I was by no means not accepting that amendment; I was just making the point that it was a good idea and, as such, had already been implemented.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I accept that the Government have the information and I am very grateful for that. On the other hand, we were hoping that there would be an opportunity in Parliament to discuss the results of a review annually. That would give us the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to see what the position was annually as far as poor pensioners were concerned. That was one of the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment. However, I am very grateful for what the Minister has said this afternoon. We will look at it with a great deal of concern because we are still worried about what happens to existing pensioners. We know that some of them are upset and worried that they have been missed out in the pension review, which is what this Bill is all about. Therefore, I will certainly have a look at what has been said not only by the Minister but by everyone else in this very interesting debate. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, this amendment is about the 35-year qualification period to get the full-rate single-tier pension—of course, that also applies to the reduced rate pension. I have tabled the amendment because a lot of concern has been expressed to me. Presently, there are 30 qualifying years for the basic state pension. That period of 30 years has been achieved after a fair amount of agitation in the past, and people are anxious to retain it. The Government, however, apparently argue that the 35 years is associated with a higher benefit, but this argument ignores the fact that most people will also have established some rights to the second-tier pension at that stage.
Under the present framework, a low-paid employee can establish an entitlement to a level of state pension equal to £144 if they have 30 qualifying years’ contributions or credit for the basic state pension, and of course they have to have 22 years for the second state pension. Putting in 35 years instead of 30 seems to a number of people simply to be going backwards. It is obvious that other people feel like that as well because my noble friend Lady Sherlock has tabled Amendment 16, with which my amendment is grouped and which again raises doubts about the 35-year provision. That amendment suggests that there should be a review to determine costs and benefits and so on.
I would be in full support of that if my amendment was not accepted. I would prefer of course to have 30 years rather than the 35, but my noble friend’s amendment at least suggests a review and would ensure that the matter was thoroughly discussed and a report issued to both Houses of Parliament. I would be in support of that as well. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner for her amendment, which, as your Lordships will have noticed, is grouped with an amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, which calls for a review of the phasing.
For the sake of some chronology in our thinking, a similar amendment to this was considered in the House of Commons after Clause 4. That was to the benefit of the debate in relation to it. The call for a review really belongs with Clauses 3 and 4 because it relates to transition whereas, as I have indicated earlier, Clauses 2 and 3 relate only to people whose qualification in terms of contributions has been achieved post-2016. In the words of the Pensions Minister, that makes it much easier and simpler to understand Clauses 2 and 3 than it does Clauses 3 and 4, which are significantly complex. However, my noble friends will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go into the detail of all the elements of the transition. There are complexities there, some of which it would be helpful if the Minister explained to the Committee so that we had an understanding of the complexity and the consequences of it for individuals.
I will first address the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner, which challenges the imposition, as it were, of a qualifying period of 35 years so soon after we changed the law to reduce the qualifying period for the state pension to 30 years. It would be to the benefit of the Committee’s understanding of the Bill and the policies that instruct it if the Minister addressed himself, as I am sure he will, to the way and the processes by which that figure of 30 years was arrived at. It was probably best explained by the Pensions Minister at col. 141 of the House of Commons Committee stage on 2 July. He set out broadly that the existing state pensions structure had two elements to it: the basic state pension, for which there was a 30-year qualifying period, and then the additional pension—as we have come to know it in terms of the Bill, but which has different elements depending on which years one looks at—which could be built up from rights that have been built up over as much as 49 or 50 years of a working life.
The Minister then explained that in arriving at a period of contributions that should entitle one to an amalgamation of these two rights, he looked for a “weighted average”. He was challenged, probably correctly, as to why in earlier consideration of where it should lie he had favoured or indicated—at least in his evidence to the Select Committee—the figure of 30 years as opposed to any later figure. He was asked pointedly by my colleague Gregg McClymont whether there was a financial consideration as opposed to just some broadaxe approach at trying to work out somewhere that was appropriate, and which could do justice to those two elements as they were brought together.
The advantage that my noble friend Lady Turner gives the Committee is that she gives the Minister an opportunity to explain in more detail how the 30-year figure was arrived at and how it can be justified, as opposed to some broadaxe, weighted average-type judgment. If it is just a judgment that had to be made for speed and efficiency, the Committee ought to know that it is about the right figure and there is nothing more to it than that. That is the strong implication of the way in which the Pensions Minister approached his explanation in the debate in the House of Commons.
We on these Benches support the single-tier pension and recognise that at some stage, judgments have to be made, but it is much easier to support judgments if there is an explanation of the reasoning behind them to convince us why it should be 30 years rather than 32, 33 or whatever. Those figures are very important.
I do not think I will detain the Committee for nearly as long as my honourable friend Gregg McClymont engaged the Committee in the other place on the amendment that now stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. However, in introduction, I want to tease out one or two observations about the amendment that I think should properly lie in our discussion after the debate about Clause 4, to explain why a review is necessary. Once one gets a sense of the complexity of the transition and the interaction of different calculations, one begins to realise just how important it is to have a review informed by reality. Of course, a part of that reality is the level at which the single-tier pension is fixed so that one knows who are the losers and who is being affected
What really instructs the review is a defeat of expectations. The Pensions Minister engaged with the perception rather than the reality. I am not keen on trying to argue policy changes on the basis of perception. That is principally because for two years I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, where I was repeatedly told, “In this country, Minister, you have to understand that perceptions are much more important than facts”. No matter how good my arguments were, I was told, “But that is not how it will be perceived” in one community or another, and that perceptions were much more important than facts—so much so that I thought for a period of having one of those famous signs on the desk that Ministers and executives often have made, reading, “In this office, facts are more important than perceptions”, but I thought that that might have been provocative and decided that it would not be a good idea.
Greg McClymont argued, and I support him, that there is a significant group of people who have a similar experience to that expressed in the e-mail that coincidentally I received this afternoon—people who have a set of expectations that are defeated. Unless there is engagement with those issues and some sense of fairness, the fairness, simplicity and other measures that the Government have set for these changes will not be met.
In this case, there is a group of people who have an expectation that they will get the full rate of whatever the state pension is after 30 years of work or 30 years of national insurance contributions. They will be met with the reality that it now requires 35 years. I will come to this in some detail—I am not going to take that long about it—but I know that one can say to them that 30-35ths of this figure is more than 30-30ths, or more than 100%, of the figure that they were expecting. However, they are retiring into an environment in which other people are getting not 30-30ths of the figure that they were expecting but 100% of what the new figure will be. That is an important point to make.
Lord Freud
My Lords, under the single-tier pension we will be merging two schemes: the basic state pension, which requires 30 qualifying years for the full rate, and the state second pension, which you can contribute to for up to nearly 50 years.
Requiring 35 qualifying years for the full single-tier pension strikes the right balance. It will enable the majority of people who contribute to achieve a full state pension through either work or the comprehensive system of credits available to people unable to work, while still retaining the contributory principle. This leaves considerable leeway for people to have gaps of up to around 15 years in their working life and still qualify for the full rate. In 2020, the significant majority of single-tier pensioners—around 85%—will have 35 qualifying years or more. Our analysis suggests that in 2020 around 90% of male and 80% of female single-tier pensioners will have 35 or more qualifying years.
There is a simple response to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised about expectations. In the existing system, we have no such thing as a full state pension. We have £110 basic, plus who knows how much additional pension. It is complex and people do not know what to expect. That is exactly the point that the single-tier pension will address.
In the early years after implementation, people in Great Britain with between 30 and 34 qualifying years are just as likely as those with 35 or more qualifying years to have a higher state pension under single tier than under the current system. The transition calculation provides for a “better of” comparison at April 2016 so that the person receives the higher of their national insurance valuations based on old and new scheme rules, with the old rules being based on 30 qualifying years.
That will, in fact, advantage some people because, where someone does not have the 35 years needed for the full level of single-tier pension, they will receive a pro rata amount according to the number of qualifying years that they have built up, provided that they meet the minimum qualifying period. Someone with 30 qualifying years would therefore get a single-tier valuation of 30-35ths of the full rate, or around £123 per week, as my noble friend Lord Stoneham pointed out, less any adjustment for contracting out based on the illustrative single-tier rate of £144. In many cases, the single-tier valuation will be higher than the valuation that people would get under the current system, as 30 qualifying years of basic state pension gives an income of £107 a week in 2012-13 terms.
Furthermore, where someone’s foundation amount in 2016 is below the full single-tier rate, people will have the opportunity to increase this amount by gaining additional single-tier qualifying years before reaching state pension age through work, paying voluntary contributions or receiving national insurance credits. The current broad range of credits will be mirrored under single tier, and when universal credit is in place, it will extend credits to an additional 800,000 people who do not receive them under legacy benefits.
These arrangements recognise people’s contribution records in the existing scheme and allow people to have significant gaps in their national insurance record while still ensuring that 80% of new single-tier pensioners reaching state pension age by the mid-2030s receive the full rate of the single-tier pension.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, would require the Government to conduct a review of a phased transition for the move between 30 and 35 years for a full pension. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that there is little evidence that such transitional arrangements are needed. However, I need to point out that, if a review were to recommend a single-tier pension based on a 30-qualifying-year requirement, this would carry with it cost implications. The estimated cost of such a system, compared to a 35-year model, would be around £700 million per annum in 2030 and £2.9 billion per year by 2060.
Furthermore, to reinforce the point about uncertainty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, a delay in defining the qualifying requirements for the new system, which a review would necessitate, would introduce uncertainty for those closest to retirement. The period following Royal Assent will be a crucial time for the delivery of single tier, and making fundamental changes at that point might well delay implementation. This moves back to the amendment raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the importance of communicating the reforms and a clean communication. The point on the move from 30 years to 35 seems more of a communications issue than one of principle. To this end, helping people to understand how they may be affected, we have been conducting field work on communicating the impacts of the policy. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank everyone who has participated in the debate because it has been very interesting. However, I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I remain unconvinced. Many people will wonder why on earth there is the change to 35 years when they were used to 30 years for the basic state pension that they have in operation now. They do not understand why there should be this difference and neither, in fact, do I. The Government have produced some information about costs, as has the Minister this evening, that seem quite fantastic to me. I will look at them very carefully because I will probably want to come back again, perhaps in a different way, when we look at the whole thing on Report. I will look carefully at what everyone has said in the debate because it is an issue that is of interest and concern to many people, otherwise I would not have put it down. However, in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pensions Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very important piece of legislation. It changes the way in which we shall have to think about retirement.
Of course, we all know that we are living very much longer, and the Government already insist that everyone will need to work longer before collecting the basic state pension. The Bill proposes a single-tier pension for those retiring from 2016 and, of course, contains provisions under which men and women will work to the same age—67—by 2026. The single-tier pension will be £144 per week above the basic level of means-tested support. As indicated, the pack provided by the Government sets out the ways in which it is proposed to transfer people to the new arrangements. That could turn out to be really quite complicated.
How does all this affect people, poorer people in particular? Many people in well paid jobs are quite happy to work for longer before retiring. Some actually want to do so. Things are often very different for those who have spent a lifetime in employment such as manual labour or cleaning, often very low paid work. A woman who has done that kind of work, such as hospital cleaning, over the years is very anxious to be able to give it all up at a reasonable retirement age.
Then there are workers in strenuous or difficult, sometimes dangerous, work. We should remember the fire service staff who threatened industrial action if their retirement age was raised, who were successful in getting what they wanted. Of course, there are other industries in which people will want to retire early. There should be provision for them to do so. A single-tier payment may be easier to administer but people are different and work patterns are different, and a good scheme should take account of that.
The Bill also deals with the effect of private pensions. These have changed over the years, as many people have said. I well recall my years as a trade union official, when we all aimed to have members in what were then called final salary schemes—now known as defined benefit schemes. These have to some extent disappeared, except in cases where there is strong enough union organisation to prevent that from happening. My own union, Unite, has had several successes in that direction. But generally speaking, the number of employees saving in workplace pension schemes has declined.
The previous Labour Government sought to deal with that through the introduction of workplace pensions with automatic enrolment. Many of us welcome that development and the information pack tells us that this is proving successful, with far fewer opt-outs than was at first imagined. The Government clearly accept that the state pension, even in the new guise of the single-tier pension, is not going to be sufficient to provide a reasonable living standard. People must be encouraged to save for retirement.
As we know, the reform of the state scheme is intended to provide a platform for private saving. It is accepted that the new workplace schemes with automatic enrolment must give people confidence to save. Therefore, the schemes must be good; hence the Bill provides for the establishment of a Pensions Regulator, presumably with the power to intervene in order to protect workers’ savings.
Then there is the matter of pension pots. People change jobs and could perhaps lose track of pensions from former employment. The Government propose a system of voluntary transfers—pot follows member. This was criticised in the Commons and a different system was proposed—the establishment of a sort of separate aggregator—but unfortunately this was not accepted. This was discussed earlier in the debate, particularly by my noble friend Lady Drake, who referred to the pots and what happens to them. There was, however, general agreement that the security of the funds—mostly money purchase, of course—was absolutely paramount.
It is clear that the Government’s view is that a good pension entitlement for the average individual would consist of the single-tier pension plus whatever is derived from the pot or pots from the workplace schemes under automatic enrolment. Therefore, the way in which this money is managed is crucial. How is it to be invested? Can it be left to the market? I think not. Then there is the possibility of annuities; again, these are not popular. This is a very important aspect of what happens to the money that is provided under these schemes.
As we know, wages have been virtually stagnant in recent years. There is evidence that many families are struggling to make ends meet between paydays. Workers on low pay may have periods of unemployment. Saving of any kind may be difficult for them. The last thing people think about in such circumstances is retirement schemes and saving for them. Low pay can possibly indicate penury during retirement—I hope not—and this we have to avoid.
The provisions in the Bill appear to provide some improvements in certain directions—on bereavement, for example—but this seems to be on a short-term basis and there could therefore be losers. I note that the present restrictions on the payment of state pensions outside the UK will remain in place for single-tier pensions. The provision is strongly objected to by people who paid their contributions while they were in this country but who have retired to countries where there is no reciprocal arrangement. This was also raised in the recent debate in the Commons, but again, no change was agreed.
There is little in the Bill about the disabled, except a reference in the information pack which seems to indicate that there will be no change in entitlement. However, some of it also indicates that you would have to be rather heavily disabled before that happened. That is very unfortunate and something that we ought to explore further because disablement is expensive and people who are disabled deserve special acknowledgement and special treatment.
As I have already said, there are a number of issues that must be further explored in Committee. The impact on poorer people, many of them women, must be examined. As indicated, many find saving very difficult, if not impossible. Schemes that rely on individual savings are unlikely to be acceptable to future generations. This is a very important Bill and we must spend a great deal of time in Committee looking at the issues we have raised this afternoon.
Atheists and Humanists: Contribution to Society
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate and for the manner in which he did so. I am myself a secularist and a humanist. I was not always so: my mother was a Roman Catholic and I was baptised in that religion. I gradually grew away from it in my teens, became a supporter of humanism and have remained so.
I respect others who continue to adhere to their religions; that is a matter for them. My objections occur only when religious hierarchies attempt to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them. We saw some evidence of that during our discussions on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. We nevertheless went on to adopt it by a large majority. Humanists supported the Bill, but then most of us have been very concerned about the opposition to and frequent persecution of gay, lesbian and trans-sex people. We are delighted that the passage of the Bill indicates that we have moved on from the days of discrimination, and that era is over—at least, we hope so.
It is characteristic of humanism to believe in equality and good will between people, and therefore to be active in campaigns for human rights. It is gratifying to reflect on the improvements in women’s rights that have been made in this country during the past century. Many of the major religions—although by no means all—have opposed the campaigns that achieved these advances. Certain religions are still extraordinarily bad about women's rights. In this country, we have an equality law. I would oppose any attempts to introduce Sharia law or practice, which is sometimes suggested. Our law is paramount. It is intended to protect women. I do not agree that culture or religion should prevent us from attempting to intervene.
One particular case about which a number of us feel strongly is that of FGM—female genital mutilation. It is against our law but there have been no prosecutions so far, although it is known that it damages thousands of women. Culture and religion should not get in the way of seeing that basic human rights prevail. That is what I hope will happen with FGM.
Unfortunately, despite the commitment of secular, atheistic and humanistic people to human rights, we are often attacked. Attention is sometimes drawn to despotic leaders who have claimed to be atheistic. Many of these depots, of course, were adherents of their particular religions, but their religions are not blamed for their misdeeds. Stalin is often cited as an example of a tyrant who was an atheist. Of course, he was originally trained as a priest and converted only late in his teens when his training had been completed. Many believe, as do I, that his earlier training conditioned his approach to politics, so you had a political line that could not be crossed because otherwise there would be damnation or worse. That was how Stalin conducted his politics.
When I was very young and I loved poetry, the writer I loved was Shelley, a wonderful poet and of course a writer who supported atheism, much to his own disadvantage. My noble friend Lord Morgan has already referred to a number of historically significant people who were also atheist and set examples to us all. However, there of course continue to be attacks upon secularists and atheists from time to time. Typical of these are some of the criticisms of Richard Dawkins, someone whom I personally admire. He has written successful books attacking religious beliefs, but not people. He has also written movingly about the Bible, the King James version, acknowledging its cultural significance and also praising the beauty of its language. Nevertheless, he is often attacked as some kind of atheistic extremist, which I think is very unfair.
As I have indicated, secularists and atheists continue to play a major role in social affairs, in opposition to discrimination and in favour of human rights. There have been some successes. We should continue with this good work.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I have not spoken before this evening, mainly because I have very much wanted to listen to what other people had to say. However, I really feel rather annoyed about this amendment. Why on this particular Bill? In the past year or so, we have sat through legislation from this Government on an enormous range of issues: welfare, employment law, foreign policy intervention and so on. Has there been any pressure for a referendum on these issues? No, there has not. However, we now have the opportunity, at long last, of producing legislation to try to and put right the discrimination which gays and lesbians have suffered for many years. We are aiming to do that, and we are doing it. We have voted in favour of the Bill, in this House and in the other place, with an overwhelming majority. The law is now absolutely clear: it says that the marriage of same-sex couples is lawful—I repeat, is lawful. Yet this amendment suggests that a referendum be held on 24 October 2013 and that there should be a statement on the ballot paper which says:
“At present, the law in England and Wales defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Should the law be changed”,
et cetera. By the time we reach October, the law will quite clearly not be the same as indicated in this proposed new clause. It will have changed because we will have voted to change the law to make the marriage of same-sex couples lawful.
I listened with amazement as the noble Lord who moved the amendment suggested that somehow or other that was not popular. In my view, this legislation is very popular, particularly with younger people. Perhaps much older people have some doubts about it but, generally speaking, younger people are all in favour of it. I was pleased that after the Second Reading debate, when I looked at my computer, I had messages from all sorts of people, including younger people, saying, “Well done, well done”, about my speech. We do not need a referendum. We should throw this amendment out. It is not worthy at all. Why should it be in the Bill? The amendment is entirely discriminatory, and I urge your Lordships to oppose it.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I note, with respect, that the noble Lord who introduced the amendment says that the arguments were not considered in the Commons. What I think he actually means is that they were considered; it is just that he does not agree with the conclusion that both Houses came to. That tends to happen in a democracy. We make our decisions on the basis of the arguments. I do not think that one can argue for a referendum on the basis that one disagrees with a decision. There is not a great deal of difference, frankly, between what we are debating now and what we debated in Committee.
I leave aside the wording of the question that would be put, which seems to say, “The present law is excellent, or are you one of that band of eccentrics who thinks that it should be changed?”. I am not sure that the Electoral Reform Society would totally agree with such a question being asked in a referendum. However, my objection is much broader than that.
I am not opposed to referenda on constitutional issues. My Government made a mistake back in 1972; we should have had a referendum before we went into the Common Market. I am glad that Mr Cameron is promising a referendum after his negotiations on Europe and before the matter comes to the Commons after the next election. What I cannot support is holding a referendum after a Bill has gone through both Houses of Parliament and after our extensive discussions in both Houses. The Bill has been approved by massive majorities. There is no question about that. It is not on the margins; there have been massive majorities for the Bill. That is particularly the case for Members of Parliament because it is they who, at the next election, have to answer to their constituents. That is what parliamentary democracy is about.
You cannot have a situation whereby legislation in Parliament goes through the Commons and the Lords and then we have a referendum on it. It makes complete nonsense of the role of Parliament and of parliamentary democracy. One of my underlying concerns about some of the opposition to this legislation is that we are going against our fundamental beliefs in parliamentary democracy and the role of this House. This House, at this stage, should not be considering an amendment of this kind. Its only purpose can be to wreck the Bill as a last chance to ditch it, and we should not have any part in it. Therefore, with respect to the noble Lord, to whom I have listened previously, and again now, I am totally unconvinced by his argument.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, I am a secularist, but I accept that many people are religious. We have spent a lot of time previously talking about the necessary protections to ensure that people who are religious have their right to a religious conscience properly protected. We have spent a lot of time on that again today. I do not object to that because I accept that people feel strongly about their religion and, while I am not religious myself, I accept the right of people to preach their religion if they want to. My only objection is if there is an attempt to impose those beliefs on people like myself who do not accept them.
One of the reasons I have been a member of the Humanist Society for a long time now is because there seem to be people in that society who are concerned with human values, tolerance, good will among people, and so on, but who nevertheless do not go along with what I can only regard as the supernatural part of most religions. Also, in my view many religions, including the main ones, are often rather bad when it comes to women’s rights. Women have made enormous progress in the past century in securing equality and a lot of it has been against some of the major religions.
This amendment draws attention to the requirements many people who are not religious may have which can be met by the Humanist Society. It seems to me to be a very good idea to have the possibility of what the Humanist Society provides for people who want to have a proper ceremony when they marry. The Humanist Society has developed arrangements to train people to provide that sort of service to members of the society. My noble friend Lord Harrison has made a very strong case this afternoon and so have other people. I hope, therefore, that what he is proposing is seriously considered because we are talking about a lot of people. Far more people are non-religious than are practising religious people and therefore we have a right to be considered.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, Amendment 34 is down in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Edmiston. I should like to convey his apologies for not being here today and although the words will be mine, the spirit will be ours.
When I spoke at Second Reading I think I was fairly clear. No one was confused. I was not in favour of this Bill. I had the pleasure of speaking immediately after my noble friend Lord Dobbs, and I am happy to do so again. I will come back in a few moments to something he said. I was not in favour of it because, as I pointed out, I had grown up in a home and environment where both Christian and Conservative principles and values had dominated. That was my view and I voted against the Bill receiving a Second Reading. However, I have been in this place long enough to know that when both Houses have spoken with such overwhelming majorities, we have got to address that issue. We then have the right to turn to how we can, if possible, make the legislation better.
I would like to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that I think he did some of us a slight injustice. We are not trying to rerun Second Reading and the concepts behind it by tabling these sorts of amendments. There is a difference between traditional marriage—as it has been referred to—and same-sex marriage, which the Government recognise in Schedule 4, Part 2 and Part 3 of the Bill. The word “marriage” is used to cover both. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, may be interested to know that I did not attach my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Cormack precisely because I thought that, having been as outspoken as I was at Second Reading, I would be accused of trying to undermine the principle of the Bill in some other devious way. That is why I did not attach my name to that amendment although I support it.
My amendment and that of my noble friend Lord Edmiston addresses a separate point. We have spent more than an hour talking about the substance of marriage, and in some cases rehearsing Second Reading, but in reality—in biological reality if nothing else—there are differences between a marriage of a man and a woman and a marriage of two men or two women. I am staying well clear of the symbolism and the aspirations. I am simply stating a fact. My noble friend Lord Dobbs said that we must address the political correctness which has concerned and dominated us for too long. I want to agree with him but in a different context. When this House and the other place have passed legislation around religious hate crimes, racial hate crimes and the like, once the well-meaning, carefully written legislation was subjected to general use, those whose sense of political correctness exceeded that of most of us in this Chamber got to work. People, employees and workers, particularly in the public sector, were accused of all sorts of things in the name of that legislation and in many cases it took them months and a fortune to prove that what they were accused of was not in accordance with the law of the land. Their reputations never totally recovered. I foresee that possibility arising out of this legislation.
Your Lordships will notice that I have not addressed the substance of marriage and I have not tried to define it. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I would like the Bill to state that for the general public who are not involved in all this deep theological and, if I may say so, legal analysis, it is all right to say—
Lord Mawhinney
I commend the noble Baroness for her enthusiasm. I will give way in just a moment. I would like the ordinary men and women of this country to be able to say, “It is legally all right; I am not involved in hatred of any sort if I talk about a traditional marriage between a man and a woman or if I talk about a same-sex marriage between two men or two women”. The Bill needs to reassure people that they can state what is factually the case and not have their jobs or reputations put at risk because somebody interprets this legislation in the way that race and religious hatred legislation has been interpreted thus far.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank the noble Lord. I wanted to make a very brief intervention to bring your Lordships back to the discussion of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It seems to me that that amendment cuts at the very heart of the Bill, for which we have already voted. Clause 1(1) states:
“Marriage of same sex couples is lawful”.
In other words, we are talking about the basis of the Bill that we have discussed and was voted for by a very large majority in both Houses. The amendment seeks to replace “marriage” with “union”, which then makes something quite different from what the Bill is all about. In my view, it is not an amendment at all, because a union of same-sex couples, as I understand it, is lawful anyway.
What we are talking about here is legislation for same-sex marriage, and amending that sentence in Clause 1(1) as proposed cuts at the very root of the legislation. That cannot be acceptable. If it were pressed, I certainly would not vote for “marriage” to be replaced by some other word. In fact, I cannot think of a word that would be at all suitable, because marriage is what we are talking about—marriage between same-sex couples, which we have already agreed in principle with a very large vote at Second Reading. I certainly do not want to repeat a Second Reading speech, although one could say quite a lot about traditional marriage because that also has been referred to in the debate. As far as I am concerned, the wording that was before us as concerns traditional marriage is very much based on a religious outlook, which I respect but do not share; and certainly it has a provision for a kind of opposition to divorce, which I do not share. Of course, I imagine that very many people in this House at some time have been in a divorce court and therefore would not qualify under the traditional marriage position outlined in some of the amendments before this House.
The main point that I want to make is that I do not see how Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, can possibly be accepted because it cuts at the very root of this Bill, for which we have already voted. We have had our Second Reading debate and have already voted in this House and in the other House with a very large majority, so I do not see how that can possibly be an acceptable amendment.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
My Lords, I would like to explain why I am against this group of amendments and why I support this Bill. I first declare an interest as a practising solicitor specialising in family matters, as a trustee of the Marriage Foundation—although I speak in a personal capacity and not on behalf of it—and as a person who has had only a civil marriage ceremony. A cynic may think that I am in favour of this Bill because it opens up another avenue of possible work for me, but the reason that I support it is precisely because I believe the reverse to be true.
Civil partnerships became legal in 2005. Seven years later, I am now dealing with a wave of cases for their dissolution, although I stress that they are no more prone to dissolution than marriages. I ask myself: would these partnerships have stood a greater chance of success had the parties been able to be married? If this could happen, I believe that there would certainly be no adverse consequences, and there may possibly be some positive ones.
The civil partnerships to which I refer often involve children of the union. It is, of course, the children who are the innocent victims of the breakdown of a partnership, however that partnership is described. It is my belief that every possible measure should be taken by this country to support commitment to stable relationships. Their breakdown and the fall-out for all concerned, financial and emotional, must be addressed because that is the real threat to the very fabric of our society.
Lord Elton
My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the case that was brought to the attention of the Committee a few moments ago by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege should have been protected by the Equality Act? However, that Act failed to provide any protection.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about Amendment 8 because I have some doubts about it. The first line of the proposed new clause states:
“A public authority, or any person exercising a public function, shall have regard to the following”.
That is followed by a list to which he should have regard. What does “shall have regard” mean? Does he have any enforcement powers? For example, could he so construct his activities that he was, in fact, forcing on people who did not want to receive it the belief in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), which state,
“that belief in traditional marriage is a belief worthy of respect”,
and,
“that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief”?
As far as I am concerned, people can believe what they like. What I object to is an intention to impose those beliefs on people who do not accept them. I certainly would not be happy to accept that, because in subsection (1)(a) there is a provision about marriage being,
“the union of one man and one woman … to the exclusion of all others (‘traditional marriage’)”.
As I said before on the previous amendment we discussed, what about the position of people who divorce? A lot of people in this country get married, go through a divorce and then, perhaps, marry again. Is their second marriage traditional or not traditional? There are a number of questions raised by the wording here which make the proposed clause quite unacceptable, particularly to those who hold a fairly secular view so far as marriage is concerned. The wording is not really acceptable because, in my view, it could lead to the position where those who hold these beliefs could, in their capacity as public officials, seek to impose them on people who do not hold them at all.
Lord Dear
Perhaps I may respond to that. I refer the noble Baroness to the judgment in the case of Williamson. I shall quote rather more extensively from what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, said:
“Many would believe it to be wrong even if it was proven to work. Both are essentially moral beliefs, although they may be underpinned with other beliefs about what works best in bringing up children. Both are entitled to respect. A free and plural society must expect to tolerate all sorts of views which many, even most, find completely unacceptable”.
I rest my case.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support the Bill. I do not understand why there is such opposition. Most people now accept equality as a desirable aspect of society. Achieving this has been a long struggle, and unfortunately there is still a criminal element which is responsible for homophobic violence. Yet most people, including those who oppose the Bill, would strongly deny homophobia. They accept that we now have civil partnerships. Those of us who always supported gay rights believe that we have won the popular argument. Then why not accept the Government’s Bill? Why not have same-sex marriages, if that is what two people who are deeply committed to each other really want? Why such strong opposition? It is strong enough to have kept us arguing for most of yesterday and a great deal of today.
Those who are opposed to the Bill tend to talk about their values. Do they think that people like me have no values? Of course we do. We believe in fairness, in tolerance, in compassion and, yes, in kindness to others who may be different but whose way of life harms absolutely no one.
This afternoon we heard the argument that somehow this damages the institution of marriage. I do not understand that at all. I believe in marriage. I am now a widow, but I was happily married for more than 40 years before my husband sadly died. He was an artist, and like most artists believed in equality. We had friends who we knew were gay, and that was a matter for them. We liked them and supported the campaign for gay rights. My husband would certainly have supported my agreement with the Government’s Bill.
Those in opposition to the Bill who talk about tradition should remember that marriage itself has evolved over the years. It has evolved in order to come to terms with the greater equality of women. In the 19th century a married woman was virtually her husband’s possession, with no rights outside the marriage and not very many within it, and no right of inheritance. Remember the novels of Jane Austen. Marriage has changed in order to deal with the change in the status of women in society. I believe that we should also come to terms with the change in society in relation to homosexual relationships.
There have been some religious objections, but the text of the proposed legislation attempts to make provision for those on an individual basis. That has been acknowledged in the Church of England’s briefing. I am a secularist, but I believe strongly in the right of those who are religious to practise and preach their religion. What I do not agree with is any attempt to impose a particular way of thinking or acting on others who do not share a particular religious view, which I think some in opposition to the Bill are attempting to do. We shall not let that happen.
Not all clerics are opposed to the Bill. If such clerics wish to officiate in a same-sex marriage they should be able to do so. We heard yesterday from Quakers, Methodists and those of other faiths who support the Bill and agree with that point of view.
I realise, of course, that there are countries where the views I have expressed are not acceptable. Usually in such countries homosexuals are brutally persecuted, and women are treated dreadfully badly as well. We should be proud of the fact that over the years previous generations have changed society in this country very much for the better. That is a tradition which we should all support. Therefore, the Bill, which is in line with this reforming tradition, should be accepted and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, should be thoroughly defeated.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, the Government introduced at a late stage in the Commons proceedings, and with very little consultation, a clause to remove civil liability from health and safety offences. This would mean, as has already been explained, that a worker who is injured because their employer broke the law by failing to carry out a statutory obligation would find it much more difficult to claim compensation for the injury. It would also make the law much more complex. As a result, many workers or their dependants will lose out on compensation, causing further injustice.
The Government have claimed that they introduced this amendment to implement a recommendation from the recent Löfstedt report into health and safety regulations. However, Professor Löfstedt has since made it clear that this is not what he proposed and the government amendment went well beyond what he recommended.
We voted to remove the clause in a move that was welcomed by victims’ groups, the legal profession and health and safety professionals. The Commons, however, has voted to disagree with our amendment. I do not know why. We should maintain the position that we took up before; it is reasonable and fair. We have to remember that there are many industries anyway where there are inherent dangers to workers. Where there are statutory regulations, those should be applied and the workers should be able to claim if those statutory regulations are not complied with, which is what the present law provides for. We have been advised by lawyers concerned with these employment issues that if the amendment we are proposing is not carried and the Government’s position is maintained, we would be taking the law and the employment right consequent upon it way back beyond the beginning of the previous century. That really is quite unacceptable, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree to maintain the position that we took before as far as this clause is concerned.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I was unable to attend previous debates on this clause but I have had an opportunity of reading what was said in your Lordships’ House and in the most recent debate on the amendment in the other place last week. I declare an interest as a practising barrister with experience in this area of the law and as a former special adviser to the last Government on an inquiry into the compensation culture.
Noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in a number of thoughtful contributions to the debate, suggested that to legislate on the mere perception of a compensation culture was to do so based on a “flimsy structure”. He accepted that there had been a problem of overcompliance with health and safety but he said that there was now a problem with undercompliance. I am unsure of the basis for this last assertion and it is not reflected by the report of Professor Löfstedt or by the report two years ago by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham. Both identified a perception of a compensation culture, as did the report produced by Parliament when I was a special adviser. This cannot be dismissed on the basis that to respond to it is simply to pander to myths. There is a strongly negative effect on employers and indeed on schools and local authorities which feel the need to set up elaborate systems to combat largely hypothetical risks. Overcompliance costs time and money and makes it more expensive and less attractive to employ anyone, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.
The aim should surely be to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to protect the health and safety of employees, but at the same time employers should not be overburdened with unnecessary and elaborate bureaucracy which can be the enemy of enterprise. I accept that this is a very difficult target to hit and I confess to being a little nervous about how much is left to regulation. However, I feel much more confident in saying that the debate, principally in the other place, was positively riddled with hyperbole. Both there and in your Lordships’ House the opposition Front Bench used the expression “a near impossible burden” when describing the prospects of a claimant bringing a successful action for injuries at work. I simply do not accept that. A breach of a regulation will be regarded as strong prima facie evidence of negligence. Judges will need some persuasion that the departure from a specific and well-targeted regulation does not give rise to a claim in negligence.
Many regulations are sensible, comprehensible and can be effectively interpreted both by employers and the courts, but this is not always the case. For example, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 were revoked and re-enacted by similar regulations in 1999. Originally they did not give rise to a civil course of action—they now do. The regulations are extraordinarily wide and extraordinarily vague and seem to require extremely elaborate arrangements, ostensibly for health and safety purposes, in particular as to risk assessments. What a risk assessment is and how you prove you have done an appropriate one is problematic. It seems to require quite a number of employees simply to be devoted to compliance with the regulations rather than actually doing the underlying work.
It was said in the other place that this prospective change in the law was “not about compensation” but about “not being killed” and that the change was not simply a matter of red tape. I am afraid that I do not agree with the burden of those comments. Nor are the Government seeking to turn back the clock a hundred years. Rather, these provisions are a response to an overreaction to an entirely appropriate aim which is to ensure health and safety at work. The problem of overreaction is having a negative effect on enterprise. To borrow the title of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Young, the aim of this change in the law is to restore common sense and common safety. I support the Government’s position.
Housing Benefit
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to assist families facing homelessness as a result of housing benefit changes due in April this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, this Government are committed to tackling homelessness, and we do not accept that our housing benefit reforms will increase the level of homelessness. The changes do not necessarily mean that people will have to move, but claimants will have to make the same choices about affordability as those not on benefits. Reforming the welfare system in an effective manner is necessary not only to improve the wider fiscal position but to help to get people off benefits and into work.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, is he aware that more than 600,000 households could be affected by this change in benefits, that many people who are unable to meet the requirements under the new benefit arrangements will have no alternative but to get into arrears, and that, if they get into arrears, they will face eviction, which will result in homelessness, despite what the noble Minister has said?
Baroness Turner of Camden
What steps are the Government taking to try to deal with the consequences arising from these new arrangements in regard to housing benefit cuts?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are expecting a number of responses by people affected by what is effectively the removal of a spare-room subsidy. Clearly some will find that they are capable of paying to retain that extra room, some will look to work, some will look for lodgers and some will look for shared tenancies. Where the options are more limited than that, apart from downsizing, we have had substantial discretionary housing payments transferred to local authorities in order to ameliorate those situations.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, in Committee I put down an amendment to this part of the Bill. I was overwhelmed by and supportive of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who made a most eloquent plea in support of the case then. I hoped that because of the support that she had, the Government would have reconsidered their position and accepted what everybody was pressing for, and what a number of us will, I am sure, press for this afternoon.
The Bill seeks to do away with Section 3 of the Equality Act, which sets out the guidance, principles and values that define the commission. It attracted all-party support in Parliament when the legislation was first debated. They are very important in terms of both perception and symbolism, as a number of speakers have already pointed out. With such pressure on the Government to change their position on this Bill, I hope that they will tell us this afternoon that they have decided to do so. It is not only the law that is important but the culture in which we all operate, and the commission plays a very large role in changing that culture.
We all want to live in an equal and dignified society, which is what Section 3 envisages. I hope that the Government have changed their mind since Committee and will now agree to support what the noble Baroness and her supporters so eloquently expressed this afternoon.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I, too, support the sentiments and comments made by all noble Lords who have spoken. I will add one further point. The distinction between compliance and a general duty implies that there is no need for anything until the point of compliance. However, many issues that relate to people with protected characteristics are often cultural, and may not get to a point where compliance is necessary straightaway. It would be much better for that culture—for example, the treatment of adults with learning disabilities, perhaps in one or two homes before it starts to gather momentum—if there were a general duty on the sector, and if the commission could go in, offer support and start to change the culture before a crisis develops that requires compliance. I echo the sentiments of others who have spoken before, and very much hope that the Government will reconsider the deletion of Section 3.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I have no desire to add to the two very detailed contributions that have just been made to this debate. However, I fully support the amendment. I am opposed to the abolition of the questionnaire procedure. I cannot understand why the Government are proceeding down this path. As has already been indicated, the questionnaire procedure saves money by deterring ill founded litigation. Most of the consultees, including the British Chambers of Commerce, were opposed to it while surveys have shown that none of the businesses questioned raised concerns about the questionnaire procedure. Quite honestly, there is no evidence at all that the questionnaire procedure is a burden on business. As far as the trade union movement is concerned, the TUC is totally opposed to the abolition of the questionnaire. I hope that the Government, having listened to the two previous noble Lords, will agree that this is not the path to go down and will not proceed with the abolition.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He spoke with great passion and authority about this issue at Second Reading and has done so again to explain why this amendment is so important. In terms of practical equalities on an everyday basis, this is probably the most important amendment we are going to discuss today because it is about how ordinary people can start to challenge whether they have been discriminated against.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lady Turner have just said, there is no evidence that this procedure is being used as a fishing exercise. Case law makes clear that businesses and other respondents are not required to answer questions which are disproportionate and that a poor response would not automatically lead to a finding of discrimination. Indeed, the Government’s impact assessment fails to provide any empirical support for removing this so-called regulatory burden on businesses. The questionnaire procedure facilitates access to justice. It helps both parties to assess where a claim lies and enables them to reach an early settlement where appropriate. It is therefore crucial that the Government should not repeal Section 138 of the Equality Act 2010.