Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Turner of Camden and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, for many people who are out of work, disabled or on low incomes, housing benefit is a crucial safety net and a vital support to help pay the bills at the end of the month. I am moving this Motion of Regret at the measures to introduce size criteria restrictions in the calculation of housing benefit for working-age claimants living in the social rented sector because we see this as a very important issue.

It is but one of the changes to housing support introduced by the coalition which overall will result in around 2 million households receiving lower benefits. The National Audit Office tabulates the range of losses as running on average from £5 a week for those affected by the CPI uprating of local housing allowance to £91 a week for those affected by the overall benefit cap. The size criteria restrictions—called the bedroom tax by the noble Lord, Lord Best—are estimated by the DWP to affect 660,000 claimants with an average weekly loss of £14. Most underoccupy, as defined, by just one bedroom with the average weekly benefit loss being £12. Half of those affected will lose between £10 and £15 per week. Of those affected, 390,000 will be local authority tenants and 270,000 will be housing association tenants. Alarmingly, 420,000 of the households contain a family member with a disability. Noble Lords will recall the extensive and intense debates on this issue and the strong views expressed by your Lordships’ House in opposing these measures. The Minister referred to them a moment ago.

The overriding issue is fairness. The arguments have not changed and will not go away. Hundreds of thousands of tenants have been penalised for the circumstances in which they find themselves, with no ready means, for most of them, to mitigate what is perceived to be their alleged offence. Of course we recognise the need to deal with the deficit, but it is who you choose to bear the burden that is at issue here. In an era when we are producing tax cuts for millionaires, we are asking 660,000 of the poorest people in our country to bear a cut of £14 a week. Most people deemed to underoccupy will not have a smaller alternative property to which they can move. All housing benefit claimants of working age considered to have spare bedrooms will see their benefit cut by 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two or more extra bedrooms. The reality is that this is not a serious attempt to address underoccupancy but is about cutting people’s benefit.

Of course underoccupancy must be addressed. We agree with the Minister on that. Many councils have imaginative schemes to do so for the elderly, who are not affected by these regulations, as well as for working-age tenants. The DWP’s own impact assessment is clear that there is a mismatch between household size and the availability of suitable houses in the social sector for underoccupying claimants to downsize to. The NAO’s report reached the same conclusion, noting that there is a mismatch between need and availability. Modelling by the National Housing Federation found that while 180,000 social tenants in England are underoccupying two-bedroom houses, only 85,000 one-bedroom social homes became available for letting in 2011-12. It concludes that the lack of mobility in the sector is not a product of tenants needlessly underoccupying larger homes but rather of the logjam created by a national shortage of affordable homes.

What choices do tenants have if they are to avoid the benefit hit? The Government say that they can make up the shortfall by using their other income or their savings, which is the same argument we heard in relation to the benefit cap. Is this really living in the real world? What level of savings do the Government think these families may have? An alternative is that tenants can move into work or work longer hours. This is notwithstanding that many are not, under the stringent rules that apply to conditionality, required to be available for or seeking work. For those who are, it presupposes that they are not already trying to, that the current claimant obligations are somehow deficient and that the level of support available via the work programme is not helping them. As for taking in a lodger, for many, this will be an unworkable and unreasonable option putting the safety and privacy of the family at risk.

The alternative is to take the hit or move to accommodation that better suits the current size of the household, assuming that it is a stable size. But where? It is not very likely in the social rented sector, where there is not only a shortage of supply but, as has been identified, a dearth of one and two-bedroom properties. A move to the private rented sector would inevitably lead to higher rents and higher benefits. There would be no certainty of that being cancelled out, as I think the Minister suggested, by a move in the opposite direction to a cheaper area, but given the allocation policies of local authorities, that is likely to be only in the private rented sector.

The Housing Futures Network found that 50% of claimants would not be likely to move home when they were faced with a cut. Over one-third considered that they would be likely to run into arrears, so we have a certain recipe for driving the poor into greater poverty and debt. We have seen the now-familiar tactic of the bit extra in the discretionary housing payment fund each year, albeit funded by bumping up the percentage reductions for underoccupancy. While this will undoubtedly give some help where the properties of disabled claimants have been subject to significant adaptations and to foster carers between placements, it should be compared with the annual cut of half a billion pounds that the Treasury is seeking.

A review of the consequences of this is right, but it will not help with the misery that these provisions will cause in the mean time. The discretionary housing payment fund has a fixed budget and is having to cover an increasing range of circumstances, as we discussed on the benefit cap when my noble friend Lady Lister referred to it as “the loaves and fishes” concept. We challenge whether it is an appropriate or sufficient method to deal with disability issues. The DWP’s equality impact assessment shows the disproportionate effect the size criteria measure will have on the 420,000 sick and disabled tenants. An additional £25 million of discretionary housing payment for tenants whose homes have been adapted will undoubtedly be challenged as being insufficient mitigation, and rightly so. It is not a reliable safeguard against rent arrears, evictions and homelessness for chronically sick and disabled tenants.

True to form, the Government seek to offer some justification for this approach by juxtaposition with some other group, in this case, those in the private rented sector. As we have heard, the argument goes that private rented sector claimants receive housing benefit for accommodation based on the reasonable needs of their household, while in the social rented sector, it is based on the accommodation that they occupy. This is not comparing like with like. The nature of the tenancies is different and, in any event, when tenants are first placed in accommodation in the social rented sector, it would typically have regard to the size of the family. The reality is that household composition and need can change over time. The changes may not be permanent. Families grow with children and reduce as children fly the nest. The logic of underoccupation provision is that each change should drive a change of home; what a nonsense. It is a back-door way of undermining security of tenure in the social rented sector.

The National Housing Federation is deeply concerned that no flexibility has been given to social rented sector landlords to define whether a property is underoccupied. For example, if a home has a double bedroom and two box rooms, according to the regulations it would be underoccupied if a couple and two children were living in it, despite the reality being that the home is fully used. If the landlord reclassifies the property as a two-bedroom unit, it would lose money, which simply does not seem right. This is just another anomaly of the system.

This is a grotesque experiment in behavioural economics. The department has no idea how tenants will react, and the Government do not seem to care. Indeed, they hope that tenants will sit tight and take the hit because that way the Treasury maximises its saving. It is a callous piece of public policy that will put people into debt, drive increased homelessness and fracture communities, and we should have none of it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend in his amendment. I agree with him fully that the new regulations before us are unfair to vulnerable people. They are being introduced at a time of a housing crisis that is particularly acute in places such as London. The situation in London is that rents are too high and wages are too low. The right to buy was fine for some, but it reduced the number of social homes available for rent. The social homes should have been replaced but, of course, that did not happen. Now local authorities are already looking to acquire premises for alternative social housing, often on sites very many miles away from where the individuals concerned are actually living and where they have some sort of support. This would be particularly difficult for people who are disabled, for disabled people require the support services that are often where they happen to live. It is quite unfair that they should be placed in the position of having to worry about future housing.

As far as London is concerned, my own neighbourhood has a particularly acute situation. When I first moved to West Hampstead, the area in which I now live, it adjoined Kilburn and was never regarded as a very posh area. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. The rents now being charged are absolutely enormous, and I do not understand how ordinary working people can be expected to afford them. It is quite common for large houses to be converted into one-bedroom flats, and the landlords charge as much as £500 a week for a one-bedroom flat. That is the kind of area and range of accommodation that is available in the area, and I do not see how working people on very low incomes can possibly afford it.

As for underoccupancy, quite frankly domestic circumstances for people change. Children move away; sometimes, nowadays, they move back because they cannot find anywhere to live. There are people who require support because they are ill. Sometimes they die. Domestically the whole situation changes for people, and it is unfortunate that they should be placed in the position of worrying, every time there is a domestic change, about what is going to happen to their living accommodation. It really is quite unsatisfactory.

As for general housing, I well remember what the situation was like at the end of the war—I am old enough to remember that. There was an acute social housing crisis because a lot of London had been bombed and there was no accommodation available. So what did the then Labour Government and the subsequent Governments do at that time? They had a very bold policy of social housing that was radically put up; we used to call these houses prefabs, and some of them are still in existence. There was a set of regulations that involved rent tribunals. In those days, if you were overcharged, you could go to a rent tribunal and your rent would be reduced. That meant that you could go on living in your accommodation. If you were concerned about it, the rent tribunal had the final say about what the rent should be. That meant that your rent had some relationship to the general level of wages, and therefore people were able to go on living in their homes because they had legislation to support them.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Turner of Camden and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I do not want to add much to what has been so well said already in support of the amendment. On the other hand, we have been talking about other Bills while discussing this one, and I note that some of the information that we have from, say, Citizens Advice, indicates that it gets a lot of applications from individuals who have no idea of their entitlement and need assistance with that. If people do not know what they are entitled to, it is easy for them to make mistakes in claiming. That may very well have happened in the cases that have been cited this afternoon.

Moreover, it does not say in the Bill exactly what the prescribed amount of penalty will be, so apparently in addition to giving back the overpayment a penalty would be involved. That would mean that somebody who is already very vulnerable and who has no money could be in difficulty on paying both the penalty and the overpayment. I suggest that the Minister looks at this part of the Bill as it could do with a bit of rewriting in line with what a number of Peers have had to say this afternoon.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has opened an important probe on these provisions, and other noble Lords have emphasised some of the practical difficulties that they create. I hope that the Government will reflect on the intent, the wording, the timing and some of the practicalities that these provisions throw up.

I want to add to the questions in a modest way. The “appropriate authority” that can levy the penalties includes those that will administer council tax benefits. We know that in future several hundred authorities will be levying council tax benefits unless we can get some amendments to the Bill. There is a real issue of consistency and the systems themselves possibly being markedly different and administered in a different way. Precisely how is it proposed that consistency in council tax benefit will be achieved? What sort of value to engagement will there be with all those authorities? Indeed, is there capacity within the DWP to undertake that effectively?

I have two more questions. The briefing suggested that the penalty levy would be £50. What was that figure benchmarked against? Can I also have clarification of “due process” and whether rights of appeal are attached to this? It would be helpful to hear from the Minister. Subject to that, and to the many pertinent questions asked by my noble friends, I shall not raise further points. We have not heard the Minister’s amendments yet, so subject to that, those are my questions.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Turner of Camden and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 10th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment and to catch up on one or two points. We understand the need to merge two different systems of dealing with capital: the tax credit rules and the tariff rules in the benefit system at the moment. One question to the Minister is: why did the Government opt to do it that way round rather than the reverse way round? It could lead to complexities. Someone whose income swings around that £16,000 cut-off point could be in benefit or in the universal credit one day and out the next.

My second question is: can the Minister say something about the practicalities of how this is going to work? What is going to be the process for reporting capital, and how often will that have to be updated? Will it be on a six-monthly basis? Will there be a look back if the capital has changed during an assessment period, giving rise to adjustments to universal credits? I am picking away at some of the complexities around this, because we often promulgate universal credit on the basis that it is a simplified system, and we accept that in some respects it is. However, it still has attached to it these sorts of complexities from the changes in people’s lives. It would be good to know which of the existing exemptions will be carried forward into the new system.

The £16,000 cut-off point will penalise savers, making it harder for low-income working families to save. It will particularly penalise families with high tax credit awards such as high childcare costs or indeed disabled children. Therefore, we see this as a disincentive to save. I was going to ask whether this is wise when there are rumours about auto-enrolment being deferred, but I am advised that that is not now in the Government’s mind.

I was a little surprised in the briefings that we had from the department by comments about it being right that people should, over a period in some circumstances, disinvest their assets before wholly relying upon state support. However, the briefing note quotes in aid,

“earlier means-tested benefits including National Assistance required applicants to exhaust all or most of their savings (and to sell personal possessions regarded as unnecessary)”.

That has a resonance for many people, particularly on the left, and it is why, for a period, reference to means-tested benefits was a derogatory and hated term because it took you back to circumstances in which people knocked on the door, entered the front room and told you to sell every stick of furniture you had before you could rely on benefits. Reverting to references to national assistance and those practices is probably not going to be the most helpful way for the Government to sell this policy.

I support my noble friend on the one-year rule in relation to disposals of properties because the current market is extremely difficult, and even if individuals have the cash to make the purchase, people get caught up in chains and it is difficult for them to complete and sell on so that a satisfactory result can ensue. It is therefore very reasonable to request simply extending that period and that disposals from the sale of property are excluded from the calculation.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I understand that this is a rather difficult question, but one can hardly pick up a magazine directed at older people without encountering articles urging people to save so that when they are older enough money will be available for them to be provided with social care. We do not yet know what the Government intend to do with the report that we have had on social care, but it could very well involve people having to have a lump sum available at a particular time. Quite obviously, it is in everybody’s interests to ensure that people have cover for when they are ill and require social care, particularly as the report includes a general recommendation that people are best off being looked after in their own home. You have to take account of these sorts of possibilities when assessing what is a reasonable amount of money to be regarded as suitable to be retained by the individual concerned when assessing the requirement for benefit.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Turner of Camden and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I thank the Minister for that detailed response. My aim in putting down the amendments was to give voice to a lot of the opposition that has been voiced to me in the letters and complaints that I have received after people have been notified that they are likely to have a different arrangement with regard to indexation from what they have hitherto expected. There is a lot of anger about it, so I put the amendments down. I am not exactly committed to the wording, but I wanted very much to voice that opposition and to say that the people concerned have real worries about what will happen to them and their pensions in future.

I also thank my noble friend Lord McKenzie for what he had to say in support of his amendment. In default of getting anything like my amendment on to the statute book, his amendment seems very worthwhile because it means that the situation has to be reviewed and there is an attempt to ensure that what has happened is placed under survey at intervals. If it seems to be what you might call a soft answer, at least it is an improvement on what people think that they are facing in future.

I will read carefully what the Minister has said. I found it interesting that modifications can be made, surveys are conducted and so on. That is very useful and I will look at it carefully.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before my colleague withdraws her amendment, and I certainly do not intend to press mine, it seems a bit hard for the Government to say that their policy is fully evidence-based when they are only just gathering the responses to the survey and will take some while to analyse the consequences. The survey of the consequences of the switch to CPI for occupational schemes is an important one, and one might have hoped that the Government would wait for that analysis and research before they committed to the switch long-term.

[Lord Freud]

The consultation exercise informs how we do these things in some detail in regulatory terms, but it does not affect the decision and direction of travel.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Turner of Camden and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 34. These two amendments start life as probing amendments. They in effect seek further information about the proposed demise of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. For the former, the October 2010 announcement merely recorded that the Government are exploring options for continuing to gain the disability advice that is needed through a more flexible, accountable structure. For the latter, it is proposed that the functions can be carried out between the DWP, external specialist advice and Equality 2025. It seems that in respect of these two particular organisations, the decision has already been taken that they will be terminated. What is to go in their place is as yet unclear.

We are promised consultation on the successor to DPTAC. Perhaps the Minister will advise us on the exploration of the options and on what precisely is so inflexible about the current arrangements. One complaint about the current structure that seems to drive the proposed change is that DPTAC has a degree of independence and takes forward areas of work that reflect its own priorities and not necessarily those of the Government. This seems a particularly perverse reason to close it down. Surely this is a case where independence should be welcomed. DPTAC can rightly claim that much of the improvement over the past 20 years in the mobility of disabled people can be traced to the work that it has undertaken.

The Minister will be aware that DPTAC started life as an informal group and, because of its success, was placed on a statutory basis in 1985 by a Conservative Government. The Transport Act of that year requires the organisation to consider any matter referred to it by Transport Ministers, and to give advice on any issue that is relevant to the transport needs of disabled people.

I am advised that DPTAC also has statutory functions through other legislation. For example, the Equality Act requires the Secretary of State for Transport to consult it before making rail vehicle accessibility regulations. Who will be consulted in future when such regulations are made? Has the Minister given equivalent consideration to other duties that are currently imposed by statute? I thought that we had common cause with the Government in recognising that disabled people were experts in their own lives. How will the Government ensure that their voices are not drowned out by those of transport providers?

The Minister will be aware that DPTAC publishes guidance and statements, carries out research into disabled people's experiences, promotes accessible transport and solutions, and develops training. Who will do this in future and where will the funding come from? I will give one example. The DPTAC Olympic working group has been working closely with the delivery authorities on an accessible transport system for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. Why is it imperative that this should be changed now? Big strides have been made over the past decade towards more accessible public transport. Rights of access to public transport are in place, along with end dates for the accessibility of all buses, coaches and trains, and a new EU directive on access to air travel for disabled people.

However, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation contends that a major investment in accessible transport has not yet been matched by a major increase in disabled people's confidence in getting out and about. It states that there remains a huge amount of awareness-raising to be done and some gaps in the regulatory framework to be plugged, for example around taxes. It states that, despite considerable progress, the building blocks are not fully in place to deliver a truly integrated system that guarantees independent, safe mobility. Such a system is vital for ensuring that disabled people have proper access to services and jobs. RADAR acknowledges that DPTAC has greatly influenced progress to date and that there is a great need for its role in future. The loss of an independent voice will need considerable justification by the Minister if we are not to return to this on Report.

The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board was set up in 1991—again by a Conservative Government. Its statutory role is to give advice on request to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to advise medical professionals working for the DWP on cases as and when requested, and to produce annual reports. The board draws members from across the health and social care field and must include at least six disabled people. The Government's justification for its demise is that they now have available to them a number of sources of advice, including medical practitioners and experts in the disability field such as Equality 2025. We acknowledge that. They suggest that the board has not been commissioned to provide any advice since November 2008 and that this position is likely to continue. One presumes on this basis that the board is not being consulted on reform of the DLA.

As we know, the Government propose to introduce the replacement to the DLA—the personal independence payment—in 2013-14, and will start with a reassessment of the working age case load. It is proposed that there will be no automatic entitlement to the PIP, and each case will be looked at individually to consider the impact of the impairment or health condition. Key to the benefit will be an objective assessment of individual need, which is being developed in collaboration with a group of independent specialists in health, social care and disability, including disabled people. Does not this description fit the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board? Are you not in danger of removing it from the scene at the very point when its expertise might be brought to bear in aid of government policy?

It is accepted that the Government have sought to involve a wide range of individuals and organisations in the consultation, and that is how it should be, although the Minister might explain why the consultation period is shorter than the recommended 12 weeks and included the Christmas and new year breaks. Although we hold no particular brief for the board—it might perhaps be refreshed rather than terminated—we are entitled to ask the Government what mechanisms they will put in place to ensure that disabled people and experts working in health and social care can monitor the implementation of the new arrangements and provide independent advice to ensure that the descriptors are accurate and relevant, that the process will be fair for disabled people, and that assessments are carried out by appropriately qualified individuals with capable and confident decision-makers—in other words, learning the lessons of the ESA.

Now is not the time for a detailed debate on the proposals to reform the DLA other than to say that we will examine the detail of the final proposals specifically to see that they maintain the principles of a universal benefit that recognises the additional cost of living for someone with a disability and supports those who can work as well as those who cannot, and that disabled people are fully involved in the design of the gateway. We accept that the Government have made clear that they accept their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to consult disabled people in the design and monitoring of decisions and policies affecting disabled people.

However, the removal of the mobility component of the DLA for people living in residential care has increased apprehension in the disabled community that the thrust of policy has more to do with budget cuts than with the modernisation of support for disabled people. Removing this disability component will have a huge and regressive impact on the independence of thousands of disabled people, with many left unable to afford to leave their homes and denied the independence that most people take for granted.

Appropriate advice from the advisory board on this proposal would have made it abundantly clear up front the damage that it would inflict. Promise of a full consultation after the announcement and before implementation will not do much to allay the fears of some 80,000 people whose lives will be impaired if this proceeds. If the advisory board is to go, what will replace it? How will the independent knowledge and expertise of disabled people and others be systematically brought to bear in shaping and monitoring government policy. I beg to move.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments and speak as someone with recent experience of the situation. I was disabled for six months and realised in that time how difficult life can be if you do not have mobility. It is often difficult to move outside your own front door, to do your shopping, or to come to this place, which I like to do. You rely entirely on the services available to enable you to go outside your front door. Unless there is a body to see that the facilities you need are available, many disabled people will simply be prisoners in their own homes.

This is an increasing problem, because, as we get older, more of us become disabled. I hope that I am not permanently disabled, but I do not know whether I will be. It is certainly a difficult life. It is no longer possible to pop round to the shops or to post a letter. You are entirely dependent on the support provided by other people. I am fortunate in that I have some very good neighbours and some very good friends, but not everyone is in that situation. There is no doubt that an increasing number of people can find themselves simply unable to move outside their front door.

We need to maintain bodies of the kind that is referred to here to ensure that the facilities that are available are maintained, because a lot of them are provided by local authorities and, as we all know if we have read some of the material issued by the Government, local authorities will have their financial resources cut. Will they be able to maintain some of the excellent services that exist in many places? We want to ensure that the services that we have are available and are improved so that many people are not simply unable to utilise services that ought to be available because the finance is not there. What will be done if those two bodies disappear? They should not disappear. It is evident that they have done a lot of work already to maintain services. We want the services to be improved. Please keep them and ensure that they are available to us.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Baroness Turner of Camden and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment that I have some hope that the Government will feel able to accept. Its subject was specifically raised with us, and I think that it has been discussed with the Government by trade unions.

As was stressed by the Government in the other place, before a superannuation scheme can be introduced there is a requirement that the relevant Minister consult persons appearing to represent those who are likely to be affected by the scheme. That requirement is contained in Section 1(3)—and, in relation to employees of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, Section 1(3A)—of the 1972 Act. The amendment is designed to clarify the purpose of such consultation—namely, that the consultation should be with a view to reaching agreement with those affected. In that regard it does no more than import into Section 1 of the 1972 Act the same requirement that the Government seek, through Amendment 2, to import into their proposed new clause on consultation.

We will come to a more substantive debate around this issue shortly in the context of the proposal to fetter the existing requirement for agreement in circumstances where compensation schemes are to be changed in an adverse way. We are clearly of the view, which the Government have also expressed, that the introduction and amendment of superannuation arrangements are best achieved and most sustainable in circumstances where they have been accomplished by a proper process of collective bargaining and one which leads to agreement.

Emphasising that consultation should lead to agreement should not therefore be contentious, and I hope will command full support. However, at the start of our Committee, I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to give us the government view, in so far as he is able, on the extent to which agreement has been reached on changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, what if any residual discussions are proceeding and how he sees such matters heading to a conclusion. I am particularly interested in what he sees as the immediate steps which will follow from this Bill becoming law. Obviously I would not want him to stray into matters which could be prejudicial to an outcome agreed by all—I am sure that he would not—but in the mean time I beg to move.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I had not seen this amendment when I drafted my own amendments to the Bill. Of course I prefer it to the current wording because it at least provides that there has to be an agreement before the Superannuation Act 1972 is amended. However, as will be seen from my amendments, I approached the matter from a different angle. I was aware that the unions that have been mainly involved had not been in favour of Clause 1 at all; they said that it was introduced by the Minister on Report in the Commons to amend the requirement of the 1972 Act that any changes be agreed with the unions. Without that requirement, the Government could simply impose redundancy terms on civil servants under Clause 1 without any collective bargaining agreement at all. That seemed wrong, and I approached the Bill from the standpoint that what has to be done is not necessarily to maintain in full the Superannuation Act 1972 and its terms but to ensure that whatever happens does so only after full consultation and agreement—in other words, after the appropriate collective bargaining has taken place.

It is clear that a number of civil servants covered by the legislation and the previous agreement are very concerned about their future. Like many of us, I have received a number of letters from individual civil servants who believe that they are facing widespread redundancy in a situation where they believed that they had at least stable, if not always well paid, employment. They are concerned that, in the places where they operate, they will not find it easy to find alternative employment. That is not surprising because, some considerable time ago, the Government of the day decided to locate their offices in various parts of the country away from the south-east—notably in Newcastle. With redundancy now facing many people, those civil servants are concerned that they are in an area where no alternative employment is readily available. For that reason, they have become very worried about what will now happen in the event of redundancy.

For those reasons, I am not at all happy about Clause 1 and have indicated my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I will then proceed with my other amendments, the idea of which is to ensure that there is proper consultation and negotiation with the appropriate unions before any action can be taken that changes the terms and conditions on which civil servants were employed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, and comment on government Amendments 2, 7, 9 and 16. I thank the Minister for moving Amendment 2 which, as he has explained, seeks to fulfil the commitment made in another place to strengthen the consultation provisions. As he will have gathered from our amendments, we do not think that government Amendment 2 goes quite far enough and hope that he will able to support the thrust of our amendments.

We believe in strong, proactive, responsible trade unions. A successful process of collective bargaining is to be valued and should be at the heart of how changes to arrangements such as the CSCS are given effect. As we discussed earlier, we share common cause in wanting the changes to be agreed by all. Amendment 2, in conjunction with Amendment 9, appears to set down a process for the future, as the noble Lord explained, because the new clause will not come into effect until two months after the entry into force of the Bill. That begs the question how we view the process in relation to the current changes to the scheme.

Leaving that aside for the moment, we consider that, although welcome, the proposed consultation requirements do not go far enough. In particular, we consider that there should be a role for Parliament in satisfying itself that due process has been undertaken. At this stage, we are not seeking to be unduly prescriptive of that approval process, so our amendment is a probing amendment. Having very much nailed our colours to the mast of collective bargaining, we do not see this as a way of second-guessing or overriding an agreement that has been reached.

If we are to move away from adverse changes to compensation arrangements requiring agreement, then, especially when agreement is not forthcoming, I suggest that the appropriate Minister should be held to account. It is also reasonable that the information contained in the report to Parliament is not necessarily determined just by what that Minister considers appropriate, but by what is relevant.

The passage of the Bill has been an opportunity for the Minister to update Parliament from time to time, and I am grateful that he was able to do that again at the start of our proceedings. However, such a requirement is not captured comprehensively in the form envisaged by government Amendment 2—whether or not strengthened by our amendment—so why defer the introduction of this reporting requirement until after the introduction of the currently planned changes to the scheme? Is there really any reason why a report, as envisaged by government Amendment 2, could not be laid before Parliament immediately on the coming into force of the Bill, as the noble Lord has said?

We recognise that there have been genuine and detailed negotiations. To simply collect that process and report it as the noble Lord’s amendment requires does not seem unduly burdensome. Presumably, were there to be any delay to the order of the laying of the scheme that drifted beyond two months, that would have to happen in any event because this amendment’s effect would be in place.

If he is keen on our amendment about a government process or approval by Parliament, the noble Lord may say that that process could delay the implementation of the scheme. Simply in terms of the Government’s own amendment, however, why is it impossible to have the same process for the scheme which now looks as if it will make progress as for that which the Minister envisages for the future?

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I support both opposition amendments. When I first read the text of government amendment 2, I thought that I really could not accept an amendment that states,

“such information as the Minister considers appropriate”.

I do not think that that is satisfactory wording to have in an arrangement by which a Minister is bound to report to Parliament. It should not be up to him to decide what information is appropriate to report to Parliament. I do not think that that is acceptable. Therefore, I support these two amendments, which are reasonable in relation to the text of the government amendment. However, as I said earlier, I have some doubts about the Government’s attitude on these matters anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 5 and also to speak to Amendment 6. The amendments are all part of my position that I outlined when I said that I want to ensure that proper negotiations and agreement take place before any change is made to the redundancy and superannuation terms that we are discussing.

As I indicated before, there is a great deal of concern among the individual civil servants who have written to me, because they expect that, whether they like it or not, a number of them will face compulsory redundancy in a very short space of time. We know that the proposed new offer, which is now incorporated in the Bill in Clause 2(2), is not acceptable to the union or to the numerous individuals who have written in. The union points to:

“The absence of any form of underpin to allow people to earn more than 21 months, or transitional provisions or reserved rights to protect accrued rights”.

The union is very keen to ensure that accrued rights are protected and it points out that there is no attempt to do that in any provision in the Bill.

For that reason, it seems sensible to write into the Bill the requirement that any modifications—the union does not say that there should be no modifications, and it is willing to discuss alterations to the existing terms—should be introduced only,

“following consultation with, and the agreement of, the relevant trade unions”.

Reference has been made to comparisons with the private sector. When I was a union official, I had the job of negotiating for members in the private sector as well, so I think that it depends on what part of the private sector you look at. Some people in the private sector are reasonably well paid and have agreements that cover redundancy—it is not unknown for that to happen, particularly where there is an element of organisation among the employees.

In any event, the Bill deals with public sector employees, who have in many instances for years believed that they would have stable employment. In many instances, those people are not terribly well paid and might be less well paid than people in the private sector with similar qualifications or similar work, but they have nevertheless been prepared to work for the public sector for a number of years—some of those who have written to me have worked in the public sector for more than 30 years. Therefore, they feel that they are entitled to the conditions that were negotiated on their behalf, which they always thought that they could always look forward to in the unlikely event that they were made redundant.

It has to be understood that many of the people affected never previously contemplated the idea of redundancy or unemployment, because they believed that their employment was relatively stable. However, that has not turned out to be the case. Many of them realise that they now face closure of some offices, which means compulsory redundancy whether they like it or not. Therefore, we need to ensure that reasonable terms are maintained.

We will probably be told that the terms that were originally negotiated were far too generous and that the taxpayer should not be expected to have to shoulder such a burden. As a taxpayer myself, I have to say that a taxpayer is also an employer of the people who work for us in the public sector. As an employer, I want to ensure that the people who work for us are reasonably well paid and that the agreements negotiated on their behalf are kept as much as they possibly can be. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My noble friend has, as ever, made a passionate and powerful case for ensuring that people are treated fairly, particularly in relation to compensation when she brought up pension rights. The amendments are an alternative means of achieving something that we have further amendments for later on. They are essentially seeking to get rid of the caps. We obviously support that.

In a sense, this approach is predicated on Clause 1 not standing part of the Bill, which it did. It is now more difficult for these to fit together, but the concept of getting rid of the caps is something that I thoroughly support.

The amendment raises the difficult issue of the extent to which there must be agreement. Again, we are at one in recognising that there must be a proper process. There must be a consultation and every effort made to end up with a negotiated settlement. My right honourable friend in the other place, Tessa Jowell, made clear that we accept that there would be circumstances in which changes would have to be made that did not rely upon agreement. We do not do so lightly, and nor, I am sure, does the Minister. To that extent, we may differ a little on my noble friend’s amendment, but we have some other amendments constructed to achieve, in large measure, the same thing: to get rid of those caps and the right to revive them at the earliest opportunity.