Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017
Baroness Wheeler Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, these two Motions relate, first, to the disability elements of tax credits, as well as the guardian’s allowance; and, secondly, to the rates, limits and thresholds that govern national insurance contributions. Many of these changes are made simply to bring rates into line with inflation, as measured by the consumer prices index, which put inflation at 1% in the year to September 2016.
I speak first to the draft regulations for the uprating of disability-related tax credits and the guardian’s allowance. In short, the regulations provide for an increase in line with inflation to the disability elements of tax credits. This means that we are maintaining the value of support for both the disabled children whose parents or carers are in receipt of child tax credits and the disabled workers in receipt of working tax credits. The rise in rates also covers the new element for disabled children who were born on or after 6 April this year, regardless of the two-child limit for claims of child tax credit. The regulations also increase the guardian’s allowance in line with inflation, to sustain the level of support for children whose parents are absent or deceased. The two things I just outlined—the disability elements of tax credits and the guardian’s allowance—are exempt from the benefits freeze. This is so that we can provide support to those who face the additional cost of disability and care.
Let me turn to the other set of draft regulations we are debating: those that make changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions, and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance funds if required. These changes will take effect from 6 April this year. Starting with Class 1 national insurance contributions, the level of earnings at which employees start to gain access to contributory benefits, known as the lower earnings limit, will rise in line with inflation. The primary threshold, which is the level at which employees begin to pay Class 1 national insurance at 12%, will also rise with inflation. The upper earnings limit, which is the level at which employees start to pay Class 1 contributions at 2%, is being raised from £827 to £866 a week. This reflects the Government’s commitment to align this limit with the higher rate income tax threshold, which is being raised from £43,000 to £45,000 for the 2017-18 tax year.
As the Chancellor announced at the Autumn Statement, the levels at which employers and employees start to pay Class 1 national insurance are being aligned. To do this, the secondary threshold, where employers start to pay, is being increased from £156 to £157 per week. This will be the same as the primary threshold for employees from 6 April this year, and will make it easier for employers, as they will no longer have to operate two similar thresholds at slightly different rates.
Finally, for the employed, the level at which employers of people under 21 and of apprentices under 25 start to pay employer contributions will keep pace with the upper earnings limit and rise from £827 to £866 per week. This maintains our commitment to reduce the costs of employing young apprentices and young people. This is an above-inflation increase and maintains alignment with the upper earnings limit, meaning that employers pay national insurance only for the highest earning young apprentices and those under 21.
Moving on to the self-employed, the level at which they have to pay class 2 contributions will rise with inflation to £6,025 a year, and the weekly rate of class 2 contributions will also rise in line with inflation to £2.85. Self-employed people who earn above the lower profits limit, currently £8,060, also pay class 4 national insurance contributions at 9%. This threshold will rise with inflation. Above the upper profits limit, the self-employed instead pay 2%. Like the upper earnings limit for the employed, this limit for the self-employed will rise from £43,000 to £45,000 per year.
Finally, for those making voluntary class 3 contributions, the rate will increase in line with inflation from £14.10 to £14.25 a week.
I note that these regulations make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecast annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if needed, during 2017-18. This is a routine measure which does not impact the Government’s overall fiscal position. A similar provision will also be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.
I hope that has been a helpful overview of the changes the Government are making to increase rates of support and contributions to the Exchequer in line with inflation. Noble Lords will of course be aware that the Chancellor announced yesterday that the main rate of class 4 national insurance will be increased to 10% in 2018-19 and 11% in 2019-20. This, alongside the abolition of class 2 NICs, is a progressive change to the self-employed NICs system. Over 60% of self-employed people who have to pay national insurance will be better off as a result of these changes. However, the rate of class 4 is not affected by these regulations and there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to discuss this measure in the Budget debate next week. I commend to the Committee the draft regulations on tax credits and the guardian’s allowance, as well as on social security contributions. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two instruments. The first on the agenda, the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations, would enact the annual re-rating of national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds and allow for the payment of Treasury grant not exceeding 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for the coming tax year to be paid into the National Insurance Fund. These come into effect in April this year. Given that we are dealing with national insurance contribution rates, I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised by my first question, to which he has already referred. In view of the surprise announcement in yesterday’s Budget, which is attracting some controversy, is he able to clarify or provide further information on the proposed changes?
The second SI is on tax credits and guardian’s allowance upratings for the increase in working tax credits and child tax credits for individuals who are disabled or severely disabled. It would also increase the weekly rate of the guardian allowance, again with both changes taking effect in April 2017. Since 2011, the inflation measure used to determine the uprating of social security benefits is the CPI. The uprating is based on the change in level of the CPI from September 2015 to September, recorded at 1%.
A rise in support for working families, however small, is welcome, and we have no intention of opposing either of the orders this afternoon. However, although I do not want to rehearse the arguments that will be had during the Budget debate next week, it is important to consider on the record this 1% uprating in context. Inflation is rising, and indeed is expected to increase further still over the course of this Parliament. As the Resolution Foundation has recently reported, the result of that could mean that average earnings in 2020 will be only just higher in real terms than they were 15 years ago and, crucially, we could see a fall in real pay at the end of this calendar year as price increases outstrip pay rises.
The same report from the Resolution Foundation found that the Government’s benefit freeze will raise an extra £1 billion a year by 2020, or £3.6 billion over the Parliament, compared with what was expected in the 2016 Budget. My noble friend Lady Sherlock asked a question about this figure last week in Committee but was unable to get an answer, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond today. Is the figure accurate? If not, will the Minister tell the Committee the value of savings that the Chancellor expects to make?
The Resolution Foundation analysis has been supported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has underlined that the Government’s approach represents,
“a shifting of risk from the Government to benefit recipients”.
The institute has also stressed that this risk is borne by low-income households and that, unless this policy changes, higher inflation will reduce their real incomes.
I have one final question regarding the Treasury grant. In what circumstances do the Government anticipate such a grant would be made; when was a grant of this nature last paid into the National Insurance Fund; and what does 5% represent in real terms? The economic outlook for working people is one of less disposable income. Although we do not oppose these instruments, it is clear from the Government’s overall approach that their priorities are not compatible with a society that truly wants to support the most vulnerable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for these measures. I will try to answer the three or four questions that she put to me, starting with the easiest on the provision of a Treasury grant. The provision in the estimates does not mean that it will be drawn down. Indeed, this year the provision is being made only as a precaution. The 5% provision is equivalent to £5 billion in the case of the GB National Insurance Fund, and £134 million in the case of the Northern Ireland fund. A Treasury grant was last paid into the National Insurance Fund in 2015-16. We do not anticipate a payment being made in the current year because the reserves in the fund seem at the moment to be adequate.
I turn to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the savings from the uprating freeze. I hope I can provide some helpful information. When we legislated for the four-year uprating freeze in the Welfare Reform and Work Act, we published an impact assessment of those rates included in the four-year uprating freeze. Both Houses debated the clauses and passed the Bill, which received Royal Assent in March last year. At Budget 2016, which was the last fiscal event before the change came into effect, the freeze was expected to save £3.5 billion in 2020-21 to help to deal with the underlying deficit. However, neither the Government nor the OBR has re-costed the freeze. The uprating freeze has already been implemented and is subsumed within the welfare spending forecast. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the information that she asked for.
On the report by the Resolution Foundation and the impact on household incomes and distribution, we considered the impact of the four-year uprating freeze when we announced the policy in the July 2015 Budget. The background was that we found that the majority of working-age benefits and tax credits had grown faster than earnings since 2008. As part of our commitment to make work pay, we introduced the four-year uprating freeze to reverse that trend of benefits rising faster than earnings. We introduced the uprating freeze alongside other measures to support work incentives such as the national living wage, and we exempted elements of benefits and tax credits that related to the additional cost of disability and care, in recognition of the additional costs that these claimants face. Indeed, the regulations today increase those elements of tax credits in line with prices.
With regard to the legitimate question the noble Baroness posed about inequality, income inequality is now lower than it was in 2010 and the share of total income tax paid by the top 1% is 27%. According to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its lowest level since 1986.
Finally, as I have said, there will of course be an opportunity to discuss yesterday’s Budget announcement in the Budget debate and when the necessary legislation comes before the House. I am not sure that I can add to what the Chancellor has said, not just in his Budget but in his many interviews during the day. The background is basically that, at the moment, self-employed people pay less in national insurance contributions than people in employment and, historically, this was because the self-employed received much less in state pension and contributory benefits. Since last year, because of the changes that we have made, self-employed workers now build up the same entitlement to the state pension as employees, which is an £1,800 a year pension boost for the self-employed. At the moment, someone who is employed and earning £32,000 will incur, with their employer, over £6,000 in national insurance contributions, while a self-employed person earning a similar amount will pay £2,300. That is why we needed to address the point of fairness in the national insurance contributions, which fund the NHS and pensions. That is the background which has given the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, the ammunition she needs to come back next week with her colleagues in the debate on the Budget. I welcome what she has said about these regulations and I beg to move.
Legislative Reform (Private Fund Limited Partnerships) Order 2017
Baroness Wheeler Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the venture capital and private equity industries are important parts of the UK financial services cluster, and the limited partnership structure provided by the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 is a popular vehicle for establishing investment funds in these industries. Currently, approximately 250 fund managers operate some 780 venture capital and private equity schemes in the UK under this structure. This equates to around £142 billion in assets under management, and 20 to 30 new schemes are launched each year. These businesses are important contributors to the UK economy, providing high-wage direct employment and indirect employment through the use of professional services firms, as well as contributing tax take to the Exchequer. The venture capital and private equity industries play an important role in providing funding to start-ups and small businesses and in improving the UK’s productivity.
In 2013, the Government launched their investment management strategy—their comprehensive strategy to make the UK one of the best places globally for asset managers to do business. As part of the investment management strategy, the Government committed to consulting on amendments to the Limited Partnerships Act. While limited partnerships are a popular vehicle for private equity and venture capital schemes, the legislation was not originally drafted with its use primarily as an investment vehicle in mind. Rather, it was originally drawn up to apply to trading entities. The result is that some provisions in the Act are not suitable for the needs of investment funds.
The investment management strategy came at a time when the competing jurisdiction of Luxembourg was updating its own limited partnership regime. Further to this, since 2013, France and Cyprus have also introduced structures to compete with the UK regime. With the UK’s imminent withdrawal from the EU, there is even more pressure to maintain our status as a leading global financial services hub. Therefore, it is timely and urgent that the UK looks to update its structures for the private funds sector.
The Government propose by way of this order to create a new category of limited partnership, the private fund limited partnership, which will differ from the existing structure in areas that currently create unnecessary administrative burden and legal uncertainty for partners. The existing 1890 and 1907 partnership Acts were originally designed to apply to trading businesses rather than investment funds. When an investment fund is established as a partnership, extensive legal work is necessary, using powers of variation under the legislation, to clarify the respective roles of: the general partners, who are in practice the fund management entities who have wide powers to manage the affairs of a partnership but face unlimited liability in respect of its activities; and limited partners, in practice the investors who have no general powers of management over the affairs of the partnership but have limited liability in respect of its activities, up to an amount specified in the partnership agreement.
The proposed order will introduce a list of activities that limited partners are permitted to carry out without taking part in management, to increase legal clarity for partners on the current state of the law. It will also make some other minor changes to the Act to remove unnecessary administrative burdens for private funds structured as partnerships.
Limited partners in a private fund limited partnership vehicle will not be required to contribute paid-in capital to the partnership. This will make the administration of investments simpler. All capital requirements set out in Financial Conduct Authority regulations will continue to apply. Statutory duties which are inappropriate to the role of a passive investor will be disapplied in a private fund limited partnership. These statutory duties are already generally disapplied through the partnership agreement. The partnership will not be required to advertise changes in the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette or Belfast Gazette, with the exception of the requirement to advertise when a general partner becomes a limited partner. Limited partners will be able to make a decision about whether to wind up the partnership where there are no general partners, and to nominate a third party to wind up the partnership on their behalf.
These reforms will reduce administrative and legal costs associated with the establishment of a fund. The updated structure will increase investor confidence in the UK as a jurisdiction for fund domicile. This order will reduce the burden for businesses and make the UK a more attractive jurisdiction for funds. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As he has outlined, this instrument would enable a limited partnership which is an investment firm to be designated as a private fund limited partnership. It also amends some of the provisions of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 as they apply to PFLPs and to partners in PFLPs. This change has been in the pipeline for over a decade, since the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission published proposals in 2003. In 2008, the then Labour Government published a consultation on limited partnerships. However, in response to the stakeholder responses, the decision was taken that it was not possible to continue with those reforms.
We will not be opposing this order. However, I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister, and perhaps the most sensible place to start is with the Labour Government’s objections. The consultation response in 2009 stated that concerns were raised about particular issues in Scotland, as well as how the order was drafted. I appreciate that the order has undergone revision since then, but have stakeholders raised objections on the instrument in front of us today? Furthermore, has the draft been altered to reflect the concerns raised by funds with client interests in Scotland?
One of the changes made following the latest consultation was the removal of the strike-off procedure. The original proposal would have removed dissolved PFLPs from the partnership register. However, concerns were raised that limited partners would lose their limited liability status. We therefore now have a two-tier system for limited partnerships and PFLPs. What consideration was given to delaying introduction of this instrument until all the cracks surrounding the strike-off procedure are ironed out? The explanatory document promises that the Government will look into further steps that could be taken in relation to this issue “in due course”. Can the Minister say what further steps are being taken and when we can expect to be informed about them? There have been strong concerns raised about the burden that this two-tier system will create.
The Government’s stated aim is to,
“reduce the administrative and financial burdens that impact these funds under the current limited partnership structure”.
However, as the BLP law firm identifies, there is a chance that the reduction in the compliance and administrative burden under the new PFLP regime may be short-lived and may well be replaced by other initiatives to increase accountability for limited partnerships more generally. What measures are included in the instrument to ensure that the Government’s stated aim is achieved?
The introduction of a white list brings with it much- needed clarity on the activities of a limited partner, but there is real concern around whether the Government have achieved the right balance in the role of limited partners in the new PFLPs. The proposed changes allow a limited partner to take part in the committee and to vote on proposals by the general partner, while at the same time maintaining limited liability status. Do not the Government consider that this is an inappropriate power for a limited partner? I would certainly be interested to hear what criteria the Government have used to determine the content of the white list. Getting the balance right is vital, so do they intend to conduct a review of the white list and, if so, to what timescale?
Page 8 of the explanatory document—which I found very helpful as someone coming new to this issue—makes a forceful defence for the reforms, stating that:
“Without such changes to current legislation, the UK risks becoming a less attractive domicile for funds when compared to other jurisdictions”.
That is a strong claim, but I could not see any evidence in the document to support that contention, so I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue. I would certainly be keen to hear his explanation of the role that PFLPs will be playing in making this a more “attractive domicile”.
Finally, I have two minor technical points. First, the impact assessment states on page 2 that 600 private equity and venture capital fund managers will be affected by this change. However, it states on page 8 that as many as 1,030 could be affected. Which of these figures is correct and what percentage of the current limited partnership landscape does that represent? Secondly, what discussions have the Government had with Companies House, which will be responsible for processing applications by firms wishing to become PFLPs, about the changes being made? Has it requested additional resources to deal with the increased administration costs of these charges? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the welcome. To deal first with the typing error on page 2, it should read 250 fund managers, not 600. As I said in my opening remarks, we estimate that there are 250 fund managers managing 780 funds. I shall address some of the other issues that she raised. If I do not cover them all—some of them were quite technical—perhaps I may write to her to fill in the gaps.
She mentioned the concerns of stakeholders and Scottish funds. She is quite right: a range of stakeholders raised concerns which the Government listened to, and we amended the order in several areas in response to their feedback. We took into account the views of Scottish stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland, while developing the order. On the broader concern expressed about Scottish limited partnerships being used for fraud, the Government have listened to stakeholders’ concerns and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently launched a call for evidence on the issue, covering all forms of limited partnerships, including these. The Government are committed to implementing any consequent reforms in respect of private fund limited partnerships, as well as other partnerships.
The noble Baroness asks why we did not postpone the order until we had the results of that survey. Strike-off procedure is an issue for wider limited partnership policy, and any process for removing partnerships from the register would need to apply to both private fund limited partnerships and other forms of partnerships. BEIS recently launched a call for evidence looking at the possibility of limited partnerships being used for criminal activity—a subject I mentioned a moment ago. The call for evidence closes on Friday 17 March, and BEIS will consider what further action is necessary. In answer to her direct question—why did we not wait?—the Government’s view was that it was important to press ahead with this package of amendments now because competing jurisdictions are acting quickly. Luxembourg updated legislation in 2013; France and Cyprus are introducing measures now; and UK withdrawal from the EU makes this reform timely. That is why we decided to go ahead now.
Health: Diabetes
Baroness Wheeler Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I think the noble Lord was in the House yesterday when I repeated an Answer to an Urgent Question on this subject. We have to think of the most effective ways to save money in the NHS. We are not suggesting that any pharmacies close, as the noble Lord knows. We are suggesting savings for pharmacies over the next two years. That is not to say that there will be any pharmacies closed, but we need to make them more efficient. There are some places where there are three pharmacies in one high street, which is slightly ridiculous. However, we are ensuring that rural pharmacies will be in place.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, NHS England needs 12,000 podiatry practitioners but has only an estimated 3,000, and that number is declining. Next year podiatry trainees, like nurses, lose the state bursaries that help to contribute towards the cost of training, so fewer are expected to apply. What specific plans do the Government have to ensure that high-risk diabetic patients receive the checks and care needed to avoid serious deterioration in their foot health and possible amputation?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
On the question of training for podiatrists, Health Education England is leading on commissioning a study of recruitment to small and vulnerable professions such as podiatry; the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the College of Podiatry are contributing to the funding of that piece of work. The intention is to make the interventions where necessary to ensure that students are not put off from applying.
On the second part of the question, health checks are indeed very important and we are encouraging as many people as possible to take them up. As I said, there is a problem with some people being willing to take them, and we are looking into how we can improve that.
Trade Union Bill
Baroness Wheeler Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I add my voice to those congratulating both Ministers on the way in which they have handled the Bill, perhaps especially the last part, which could have been quite a contentious area. It has been approached in a sensible way, and invitations might flow to my noble friend Lord Balfe and others. I certainly second his last point that it would be in trade unions’ interest—as I have always believed—to be prepared and proud to invite members of all parties to their conferences. It would be in the interest of the country for all parties to have a progressive and constructive relationship with the trade union movement and British industry.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I think that noble Lords will find that trade unions do invite people from all political parties to their conferences. I thank the Minister for explaining the amendments to Clause 14. The Opposition are happy that Amendments 8 and 10 reflect the discussion and agreement with Ministers on the future deduction of trade union members’ subscriptions from pay in particular, and reflect the importance of having the same choice as staff in the private and voluntary sector as to how they pay their subscription in the light of their work, their personal circumstances and their financial situation.
For us, the key points arising from the publication of both the facilities time and the check-off draft regulations are: first, the need for a full consultation on the regulations; secondly, the importance of the Minister meeting the TUC and other main parties, including unions and employers, to discuss realistic and achievable timescales for implementation; and, thirdly, for implementation dates to be viewed across the entire provision of the Bill in the light of the huge organisational, logistical and financial challenges that the Bill presents to trade unions, not just from the check-off and facility time provisions but from the Bill’s proposals on ballots, political fund changes and the role and powers of the Certification Officer.
Trade Union Bill
Baroness Wheeler Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we, too, welcome the Government’s announcement today on check-off. I understand that the Minister also has some issues to report to the House on further developments on facility time. I look forward to that.
On check-off, the Government heeded warnings from across the House on the arbitrary and unfair nature of their original proposals and the dire consequences that would have resulted across the NHS, local authorities, schools and universities from a blanket ban on check-off in the public sector. I also thank Ministers for the recent constructive and conciliatory spirit of the discussions with us on today’s Report stage issues and on the facility time cap. For all the last-minute, going-to-the-wire nature of those discussions, and bearing in mind that the amendment in its original form was tabled in the Commons as long ago as November, the movement to the current position is welcome.
As the Minister would expect, we look forward to receiving the revised amendments from the Government on both check-off and facility time to be tabled at Third Reading. We of course reserve our position subject to satisfying ourselves that the revised text meets the terms of the proposed changes. My noble friend Lord Collins will respond on issues relating to the Certification Officer’s role and power under that group of amendments.
I should like to believe that, as a result of our detailed deliberations in this House, particularly on check-off, the Government’s change of heart represents one small step towards Ministers having a better understanding and appreciation of how the current check-off system works and is valued by employers, trade unions and trade union members as part of a modern industrial relations framework in today’s public services. If it also heralds a better appreciation in the future of the importance of trade union members having the same choice as staff in the voluntary and private sectors in the light of their work, personal circumstances and financial situation, so much the better. The overwhelming consensus in all sections of this House is that public sector employers should be able to continue to make local decisions on operating check-off in the light of local needs and priorities, with trade unions meeting the administrative costs. We knew even before Committee that the unions had already agreed to do this.
Perhaps most of all, it is good to see that listening mode, which the Government have said they are in during the course of the Bill, has finally led to significant movement, rather than on just a few measures that, although welcome, have not so far—until now—impacted on the core of the Bill.
There are a couple of other issues. On Amendment 21A we also welcome the clarification from the Minister on the scope of Clauses 12 to 14 of the Bill. We were deeply concerned that private or voluntary sector service companies, such as charities and residential care homes, providing outsourced public services, could fall under the scope of the Bill. The clarification that these clauses apply only to companies performing a function of a public nature and mainly funded from public funds addresses this concern, and we welcome the Minister’s announcement that he is going to withdraw Amendment 28 and come back with a revised wording.
The Minister also knows, however, having mentioned this, that we retain some questions about the application of the requirement to charities that receive funding from public services. We hope that this can all be clarified at Third Reading, as we judge that the Government do not want to meddle with the good management of independent charities. We trust that agreement can be reached: otherwise, we may need to revisit the issue.
Noble Lords will also recall, shortly before the Committee consideration of Clause 14, the so-called skeleton regulations that were published by the Government on the scope of the Bill. This was obviously a hastily cobbled together, out-of-date document that did not represent the Government’s finest legislative hour. Ministers subsequently admitted that they found it hard to define which bodies were going to be covered, given that many of the organisations contained in the skeleton had long been either culled or merged. Can the Minister confirm that these skeletons are now well and truly buried and that the Government do not intend to resurrect them in connection with any part of the Bill?
Check-off is trusted by trade union members. It helps them manage their finances. As noble Lords have stressed, thousands of low-paid members across the public sector who need the choice to opt for check-off will be greatly relieved that it is to continue and that they will not stand to lose their eligibility for workplace representation and key trade union benefits such as those detailed so fully in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, including professional indemnity insurance and legal representation for accidents at work and on employment issues. Just as important is that public sector employers will now be able to continue to operate check-off and enter into new voluntary check-off agreements with trade unions in the light of their local needs and priorities.
We on these Benches are most grateful for the support that has been received from across the House on these crucial issues and we look forward to making positive progress at Third Reading.
PACE Trial: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Baroness Wheeler Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and acknowledge the work of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on CFS/ME as chair of Forward-ME and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group. Although a last-minute stand-in in this debate for my noble friend Lord Hunt—he is due shortly in the Chamber for the Statement on the Mid Staffs report—I am not new to this issue. As the noble Countess regularly contributes on CFS/ME to health debates I have participated in, most recently our extensive debate last November on neurological diseases, initiated by my noble friend Lady Ford. What is new to me is the focus on the PACE trial and the opportunity to hear from our expert medical and psychiatrist colleagues about the wider issues and perspectives, and about the trial itself: what it covered, who was involved, its findings and results and the wider, extensive research that is currently being undertaken across the world.
As we have heard, the PACE trial was the largest-ever randomised controlled trial of treatments of CFS/ME, primarily funded by the Medical Research Council following competitive peer review, with its main findings concerning efficacy and safety published in the Lancet. It was designed to compare improvements in safety after CBT and GET with outcomes after ADP and SMC. The patients were recruited from hospital clinics in England and Scotland, and were able to travel to clinics to receive treatment. The trial was not designed to test treatments in patients with severely disabling illness. As a non-expert, it seems to me that some of the criticisms and disappointments levelled at PACE do not fully recognise this.
As we have heard from noble Lords in this debate, the trial provided clear evidence that both CBT and GET were better than ADP or SMC in improving both symptoms and disability. In fact, all the treatments were found to be safe without any serious reactions to treatments in any of the treatment groups. I understand that a paper published last week showed that CBT and GET are three times more likely to bring about recovery than any other treatments.
Like other speakers, I want to underline the importance of looking to the future. On the NICE guidelines, I support noble Lords who stress that the key issue about them is making sure that they are actually implemented, so that patients can receive effective treatment and care wherever they live in the UK.
In the debate on 20 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, assured the House that all the neurological and specialist conditions would have “equal priority” under the new NHS commissioning arrangements, and that this would mean that the Cinderella conditions should be improved. Can the noble Baroness outline the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the commissioning arrangements provide appropriate and adequate specialist care for patients suffering from illnesses such as CFS and ME which are not easily classified under normal commissioning arrangements? To help this, will the Government give CCGs guidance on which illnesses should qualify under special commissioning arrangements? Can she reassure us that this guidance will include ensuring that guided exercise training is provided by qualified and trained specialist therapists?