Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

I was a member of the Labour Party for 49 years and, I must say, when I was there, I never, ever thought that a Labour Government, within a month of their arrival, would take things away from the poor and leave them cold for the whole winter. Whatever fiscal challenges there are, this is not the way to get your fiscal problems solved—by leaving lots of old people shivering in the cold and perhaps dying. That is not good. Think again, please.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe that this was in the 1997 manifesto of the Labour Party. It was introduced by Gordon Brown, I believe, because he had a vision that everybody should have a financial relationship with the state. I had a short time as the liaison person with Gordon Brown. I was appointed by the European Parliamentary Labour Party and our great leader then, Alan Donnelly, said, “I’m sending you to Gordon—he’s about the most difficult one, but you’ve got a thick skin”. I recall meetings where this was discussed; it was never discussed in the area of poverty, but always in the area of benefits and helping everybody. So this was introduced by Labour and is now being scrapped by Labour, which seems embarrassed by the size of its majority and is trying to make itself unpopular—and I would like to say that it is succeeding.

There have been economic problems all my life: in 1964, 1970, 1974, 1979, 1997 and 2010. Incoming Governments claim they have found big black holes—it has always been the same; but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, as Liz Kendall said in the House of Commons yesterday, that the Tories were spending like “no tomorrow” and at the same time say that there is a huge deficit in public services, that teachers need more, that schools and hospitals need rebuilding and that the National Health Service is in crisis. It just does not add up. You cannot have an economic crisis and a big black hole, and at the same time huge demands for more money.

Obviously, I read the three Motions and listened to the very good statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but I am afraid that, on balance, because of the conventions of the House, I will be supporting the position my party is taking on that Motion. I have listened attentively to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who made a very good contribution, but there is one point with which I disagree: point two, the decision to prioritise above-inflation pay rises for unionised public sector professionals.

The pay award bodies came in with awards, which the Government accepted. Is it now the position of His Majesty’s Opposition that the pay awards given by the boards that we set up would have been rejected by us? It does not add up. Quite frankly, public sector workers and trade unionists have had just about as much as they can take. All the time, everything is blamed on them, but these are the people who man the hospitals, schools and all the parts of the state we rely on, and they deserve decent pay and conditions. Although I am on the Benches that do not normally say that, I have been saying it for years and I will say it now.

I also remind the House that the British Medical Association may be a union, but it is not affiliated to the TUC and nor is the Royal College of Nursing. There is a widespread demand in society for fairness, and these pay awards were part of it. The Government did not prioritise the pay awards over the pensioners; those were two quite separate decisions. The pay awards were in line with the procedures set up and continued by our Government. The decision on pensioners was a grubby little decision, taken God knows why, which does not save much.

It is quite right that we should have made it a taxable benefit from the beginning. I was only ever asked once by a Chancellor of the Exchequer—he is now my noble friend Lord Hammond—what I would put in the Budget if I were Chancellor. I said that I would tax the winter fuel allowance and abolish the £10 Christmas bonus and the 25 pence for 80 year-olds, which I have had paid to me recently and does not even buy a packet of sweets these days. I would have consolidated this money into a better pension for all the other people. There was no basic reason why people like most Members of this House should get an untaxed winter fuel allowance. That would have been my solution, and I wish the Government had chosen it.

Having made this speech, I will support the Motion that our party has put down. If it comes to it, I will also support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I regret that I cannot support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the reasons I have outlined. That is not because I do not support what she says, but as an Opposition, we need to have respect for the traditions of the House and the way we conduct our business.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I grew up in Barnsley in Yorkshire, which is a Labour stronghold, and I find it inconceivable, even as I look at this instrument, that the Labour Government are taking away the winter fuel payment from 880,000-plus very poor people, who will go very cold and hungry this winter as a consequence.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her clear explanation of the access available to the shadow Chancellor prior to the election. What she told us was important; I did not know it.

There are disabled pensioners who may not be in receipt of pension credit but who, as a consequence of this, will have grave difficulty keeping their houses as warm as they need to keep them. They cannot go and sit in the malls, shops and cafes, as so many other pensioners do, to keep warm. We should bear them in mind, and we should not be doing this.

Noble Lords have already indicated ways in which a similar saving could be achieved, through taxation processes or windfall taxes, et cetera. Noble Lords should reflect on whether they could keep themselves warm on £218 a week, and eat. The Labour Government should think again about what they are doing.

Finally, the conventions of this House are simply that: conventions. There are particular and extreme circumstances in which we should disregard our conventions for the benefit of those who have no voice. Pensioners will lose a benefit they so desperately need, and this is the one thing people have repeatedly stopped me on the street about since the Labour Government made this announcement. This is an occasion on which we should ignore convention and vote with these Motions.

European Social Charter

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, if the noble Viscount is talking about the additional protocol, I should say that the UK is one of a majority of about two-thirds of states which are party to the European Social Charter that have not adopted the additional protocol. I expect he will know that, having done my job until about 20 minutes ago. It is not because we have any objection to engaging with social partners, but because we regard the current system, in which reports are made by national Governments indicating their compliance with the provisions of the charter, to be adequate.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister commit the Government to work towards ratifying? It really is time to get this ratified. We must recognise that a prosperous society is based on working between trade unions and employers.

Personal Independence Payments

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am certainly not going to allude to any jam. It may come with my tea later if I am allowed it. As the noble Baroness has alluded to, this conversation is designed to consider what future support for individuals should look at. That is why we are bringing forward this consultation on PIP. As the Prime Minister said on Friday morning, and I was there in person to see him deliver what I thought was a brilliant speech:

“This is not about making the welfare system less generous”.


It is for a greater focus on those “with the greatest needs”, for whom

“we want to make it easier to access”

support “with fewer requirements”. Those who need support will continue to get the support that they need. The consultation will explore changes to the eligibility criteria, the assessment process, as alluded to earlier, and the types of support that can be offered so that the system is better targeted towards individual needs.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, does anyone give any attention to the many millions of trade unionists who are paying the tax bills for all this? We keep on about the need to do things, which I am sure we need to do, but we seem to forget who is paying the taxes to make all this possible. We have to have a better balance. Tax has never been higher for middle-income earners. It needs to be put under control.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend is right. I have been very careful to say—and it is true—that we clearly need to continue to focus on those with the greatest needs. As has been mentioned earlier, we are due to spend £69 billion this year on benefits for people of working age with a disability or health condition. This is not sustainable, as the Prime Minister said himself on Friday morning.

Workers (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I too begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Bridges for the report. It is an incisive report and is good at defining problems, but we are still left looking for the solutions. I also welcome back my friend the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I applaud his contribution and am very pleased that he is now back with us in this House.

As I said, this report is a good definition of the problems, but the last thing we are going to get in an election year is any solution to them. I see the problems as falling into three separate parts: what you might call the voluntary part, the sickness part and the structural part. The voluntary part is quite simply that people have decided that it is a very good idea to retire. I was very fortunate that, thanks to the pension reforms for MEPs passed by Margaret Thatcher—I will not hear a bad word said against her—I was able to retire on a full pension at 60. I have always been very grateful to that good lady for that.

The big thing about retiring is that you no longer have anyone telling you what to do. It is not that I stopped doing any work—in fact, I probably work just as hard—but no longer was there any compulsion. No longer was the diary out saying that I had to do this or that, so I can well understand the attraction of early retirement. Of course, thanks to George Osborne, if you have private means you can now retire at around 55 with a SIPP and a lot of people have decided to do just that.

I know one or two in my city of Cambridge who have decided that they had better retire. A number of them work in the medical profession, then go back as locums to do part-time work so that they can supplement their income but be retired. There is nothing wrong with that and nothing we can do about it. It is a free choice in a free society. The Government could look at upping the age at which you can acquire a pension from your SIPPs, but they cannot and really should not do much about people using their voluntary idea of retiring and leaving the labour force. In the experience of my friends who have retired, they are often doing something pretty useful afterwards.

We then get to the next category, which is where all the money is going. The claims for PIPs have doubled recently, so I am told, and the costs are going to go up because 2.8 million people are now unable to work. It is going to be a challenge for this Government and the next Government, whoever they may be, to sort out how to bring under control social security payments. However much we may think that they are under control, they are clearly not. Not only does the ONS have great problems with the statistics but there seems to be an eternal moving up.

The noble Lord, Lord Layard, who is not in his place, made a very good point about the costs of mental illness. He reminded me of another noble Member of this House, my noble friend Lord Hammond. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I met him on a number of occasions. I recall that on one of them he said to me, “You know, Richard, the trouble is quite simple. There is lots of ‘invest’ but I never see any of the ‘save’”, and this is a problem. We can always say that if we put more money in we will get a dividend out, but I am afraid that we have to tackle the issue of depression in society because if people are too depressed to work, that is a problem. My colleague—I am not sure I am entitled to call him my friend—the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, had a point when he talked about the way in which the working people of this country have gradually had their rights pushed backwards.

Noble Lords will know that I have often stood here and said that we need a much better working relationship with the Trades Union Congress and the labour movement. This is not a left-wing policy. In the European Parliament, where I spent most of my political life, what were known as the “Christian unions”—the right-wing unions—played an important part in the development of policy. Indeed, we had a trade union group in the Christian Democrats when I sat with them in the European Parliament.

We have to look at the conditions of work, and we have to stop regarding workers as latter-day slaves to be pushed around. We have to realise, as Winston Churchill did, that they need to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. That is the way to get the best out of the workforce. You do not get it through brutalism. If it is the policy of one of the parties in this Chamber to let people carry interest on their ill-gotten gains in private equity, and then not be able to afford to look after working people, that is very sad. One of the lessons in the report, for me, is the need to treat people better and to be better in the way we approach our industrial relations.

Covid-19: Over-60s

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I respond by saying to the noble Baroness that the work coaches are exercising caution and compassion when considering sanctions. Only if there is no good reason for somebody to turn down an opportunity will sanctions be applied.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

The Question actually refers to

“the advice by the World Health Organization that people over 60 should be treated as vulnerable to COVID-19”.

Some 24.1% of the British population is aged over 60—most of this House is aged around 70. The average age of Covid deaths is 82. Does the Minister agree that the WHO brings itself into disrepute somewhat if it starts categorising a quarter of the population as vulnerable? Would the Minister confirm that the many over-60s who are working hard to get this country back on its feet also deserve a bit of praise?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord that it is patronising and not a good thing to be judging people aged over 60, because of their ability to work or otherwise. Noble Lords in this House—I include myself in that—would say that they work very hard and make a great contribution to the country. We owe a huge debt to the over-60 generation, but I am afraid I am not going to comment on what the World Health Organization says people should do.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker]

I did not have a note of that. I call the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time for two months that I have been in this Chamber. It is a bit emptier than normal but it is good to be back.

I hoped to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because I want to say a few words about her Amendment 33, which is about trustees. It seeks to require trustees to take age, gender and ethnicity into account. I will certainly not support or oppose this amendment but I want to make a few points on trustees and where I think she is trying to get us to. The fact of the matter is that the whole area around the appointment of trustees could do with a close look.

There are a number of problems. The first problem for any pension scheme, particularly a small one, is getting trustees from among the membership. You can always get a professional trustee because they are normally paid £1,000 or more a day for coming to the meeting, so it is not too difficult. The difficulty is getting representatives of the pensioners. The second and even greater difficulty is getting representatives of the pensioners who actually know what they are talking about, because many people are completely bewildered by pensions.

When I read through both this amendment and the amendments about ESG and environmental safeguards, I was reminded very much of pensioners who come to me and say, “All I want, Richard, is for you to pay my pension. I couldn’t care less where it comes from.” I say, “Presumably you wouldn’t like us to invest in gas ovens,” and they say, “Well, no, but you’ve got enough common sense not to do that. You don’t need me to tell you.”

So I come to the point that, when we are looking at the age, gender and ethnicity of trustees, we also need to look at their qualifications and the way in which they are allowed to come forward, because some trustee boards are effectively self-perpetuating because they govern who is allowed to stand. You are invited to apply to become a trustee, and then you are assessed as to whether you are able to become a trustee. Often, people who come forward are not highly professionally qualified, but they are qualified in one thing, which is common sense. My experience of pensions, which goes back quite a long way, is that certainly some members on a board—not a majority—who can demonstrate common sense are extremely good.

I would also like to say that dealing particularly with gender and ethnicity can lead you into many problems. My wife gets a pension from the Workers’ Educational Association pension fund. It got itself tied into complete knots trying to deal with ethnicity and gender. It ended up asking people to vote for trustees who were anonymised. They were anonymised by taking out not only their name, age, gender and ethnicity but also most of the other things about them. So the great game in this case was to look back at previous reports and try to work out which trustee was the anonymised one. Of course, that gets you nowhere and in fact is a bit of an insult to the members who have applied.

So I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to the Minister that this is a subject that is much wider than this amendment, but it is certainly one that needs looking at. The way in which pensioners are represented on the governing boards of pension funds is haphazard, to put it mildly. It varies enormously between funds. Although there is a great cry from professional trustees that you clearly need professionals in the room, I counsel the Minister and everybody else to beware of the cry for the professional. It is very easy to get a professional to sit there and give you advice as an employee or if they are hired for the purpose. You do not necessarily need more than the odd one of them actually on the board. They have nothing great to add than cannot be added by a professional adviser. They do not need a place on the board, although sometimes—note the word “sometimes”—having a professional trustee as a chair can add a certain amount of discipline, knowledge and structure to the way that debates go. But it can be overestimated and, particularly since the pensions industry is dominated by the professionals, there is a great danger that it gets overemphasised because it is precisely the people who write in the pensions papers who are the experts and who then promote themselves for the jobs.

So I welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; I see it just as a probing amendment, laying down a few guidelines that we could look at. I say to the Minister that when there is an opportunity, it would be well worth while to set up some sort of study or working group to look at the way in which trustees are chosen or appointed, how they work and how they are remunerated.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced these amendments, and particularly for the concessions that she granted on affirmative procedures for the issues that are contained in the government amendments. This is a very welcome response by Ministers to the feeling that was in the House.

I will speak to Amendment 1 and associated amendments in the name of the Minister concerning the authorisation criteria for collective money purchase schemes. I warmly welcome the introduction of these schemes, also known as collective defined contribution—CDC—schemes, as they represent an attractive third way in workplace pension provision, with a capacity to deliver significantly better outcomes for savers than individual DC—direct contribution—schemes. However, in order for the CDC schemes to be widely trusted, we need to get the legislative and regulatory framework right. To give one example, it is vital that the authorisation criteria are appropriate. A balance must be struck in ensuring that requirements are not so cumbersome as to deter employers who might offer these schemes from doing so, while ensuring that there are robust protections in place for employees saving in these schemes.

If we can get this right, there is a significant prize to be had in the introduction of CDC schemes, and the case for this is only strengthened by the current Covid-19 crisis. The virus has had many negative consequences for our society and economy. One of those consequences is directly relevant to the Bill before us today: there has been significant negative impact on the defined contribution pension savings of many individuals as a result of the financial markets’ reaction to Covid-19. I am afraid that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, so compellingly pointed out, the Bank of England’s recent injection of quantitative easing will make this much worse. A drop in asset values and bond yields has led to more expensive annuities and resulted in pension reductions of around 8% to 10%. This has caused much consternation and led a significant number of people to defer their retirement during this period.

In my remarks at Second Reading, I welcomed the introduction of CDC schemes and cited, among other factors, their enabling of the pooling of risk between savers. This can, in turn, enable higher-yield investment strategies, as well as less volatility and greater predictability for savers. It begs the question, therefore, of how CDC schemes might have fared in comparison with individual DC schemes in the light of the recent crisis and the sharp economic downturn that has so negatively impacted DC pension savers.

Royal Mail, which in conjunction with the communication workers—CWU—has been leading the push for the introduction of CDC for its 143,000 employees, asked its actuarial advisers to look at precisely this question. The resulting analysis, carried out by pension consultants Willis Towers Watson, was conducted in the context of the 20% fall in the global equity market in the first quarter of this year. The modelling looked specifically at how the CDC scheme design proposed by Royal Mail would have been affected. The conclusion reached by Willis Towers Watson was that the CDC would have performed significantly better than an individual DC scheme. In this scenario, a scheme member close to retirement would have been able to retire as planned, with no reduction in their retirement income. This is because the Royal Mail scheme is designed with a certain amount of headroom in contributions, intended to fund future pension increases. As Willis Towers Watson has written,

“it is only if the funding health suffers very materially that the headroom could run out and pensions would be reduced … in the vast majority of scenarios, it would only be the level of future pension increases that would be at risk.”

Even with the severe level of market shock experienced in quarter one of this year, therefore, the modelling shows no effect on current pension levels for CDC scheme members, and that is very welcome. Future pension increases would be impacted, but only by a modest 0.25% per year, as this market shock was nowhere near severe enough to remove the significant headroom that the scheme would hold. In contrast, an individual DC pension saver, due to retire by starting to draw down benefits in the near future, would expect their pension pot to have fallen in value by approximately 10% over the quarter. While they would have the option to keep the pot largely invested, this saver would potentially have to rethink their retirement plans, such as changing their planned pace of drawdown, or even deferring their retirement altogether for a period. Those considering an annuity would find that the price levels had increased by around 8% over the quarter.

This analysis provides a timely and powerful illustration of just one of the benefits that CDC schemes will bring to savers through the pooling of risk and the capability to build up significant headroom to smooth out the impact of shocks, even those as severe as we have recently experienced. CDC therefore represents an attractive third way in workplace pension provision, offering better value and greater certainty for savers than individual DC schemes. With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the appropriate processes will be in place around authorisation criteria. I commend the Bill to noble Lords, and I hope that we will see its swift passage through its remaining stages in this House and its early introduction and passage through the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 73 and 79, to which I have added my name. I will also speak to the government amendments in this group.

We have come a long way since we first raised at Second Reading the issue of pension scheme obligations to address the risks associated with climate change. I say at the outset that, along with other noble Lords, we have been heartened by the response of the Minister, who, from the very start, has taken our concerns seriously and sought to address them.

Our aim all along has been to protect savers from the risks associated with climate change by requiring UK pension schemes to align their investment activities with the objectives of the Paris agreement, to which the UK Government are a signatory. This requires the Government to hold the rise in temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade. Our amendments would require regulations to ensure that trustees take account of our international treaty obligations on climate change and publish information about how this is to be achieved.

There is an increasing realisation among financial regulation that such action is necessary, and a number of leading pension schemes are already taking action on this issue. They have already begun to follow the advice of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. This Bill enables us to raise the bar, so that the best practice becomes the standard practice and all funds play their part equally in delivering on their obligations.

Since we started the dialogue with the Minister and her advisers, we have made considerable progress. We very much welcome the government amendments that have now been tabled. They spell out in more detail how the funds should address their exposure to the risk of climate change and assess the impact of their assets on climate change. The most obvious example of this is investment in fossil fuels, but this would require a more comprehensive appraisal of which assets were adding to the problem of global warming and which were contributing to a low-carbon economy.

The government amendments also require schemes to undertake scenario planning on the impacts and risks of different outcomes as we move towards the Paris deadline. We see this as sending a clear signal to the regulators and the pension funds that the Government are not only paying lip service to this issue, but expecting clear change in governance and in investment strategies. Finally, on a similar theme to our amendment, the Government require clear transparency and accountability through reporting to scheme members and the public the actions taken. Again, we welcome this amendment.

Of course, all these requirements will need robust enforcement to ensure effective implementation. I hope that the Minister can clarify the plans of the Pensions Regulator to undertake these functions and can update the House on the progress made across the different types of pension schemes to create a level playing field in their obligations under these provisions.

These are the first steps in driving a UK investment strategy towards delivering on the Paris promise, but this is an important group of investors. I hope that this will send a wider signal throughout the financial markets that business as usual is not an option. There are huge calls for a green economic recovery plan as we grapple with the legacy of coronavirus. Let us hope that all these policies can come together to help deliver that green recovery. In the meantime, I am pleased to support our amendments and the government amendments to this clause.

[Lord Balfe]

In my last speech I omitted to declare my interests, not only those recorded in the register, but also as chair of the European Parliament’s Members’ pension fund—which has a number of beneficiaries in this House—and as manager of the House of Commons fund for former Members of the European Parliament. That is certainly not as big a fund as that of my noble friend Lord Naseby, but none the less is part of the pensions scenario in Westminster. I also advise a number of pension schemes, all fairly small. My amendment, Amendment 80, concerns how small schemes will deal with the duties that will be laid on them by this legislation, and asks the Minister to have their situation firmly in mind when making the regulations.

We often think of pension schemes as huge things, like the British Airways or Lloyds Bank schemes, but the great majority of schemes in this country are quite small. My amendment sets the quite arbitrary figure of £500 million in assets under management, a figure below which the onerous requirements of the amendments put forward in the Bill would not apply. That does not mean that I think small schemes should be exempted from any social concerns. Most of my advice is based on advising small schemes to go into asset tracking, because the evidence, of which there is now a lot, is that active management costs a lot and does not work. The sensible thing, particularly for a small scheme, is therefore to invest in index trackers.

However, being an index tracker does not mean that you cannot have social responsibility. There are index trackers that follow the UN principles of responsible investment, and there are others. We are concerned in this Bill particularly with the environment; I personally am concerned with schemes that follow the principles of the ILO. It is fine to have a scheme which invests in a company that has many trees in its garden that workers paid low wages for long hours can shelter under, but there are many things in this world to concentrate on other than just the environment—I do not want to detract from that, but we need a broader set of principles.

Norway, which has the biggest public scheme in the world, has an ethics committee that looks right across the investment market and advises the Norwegian Government and the scheme on what sort of investment should be avoided. Within the past few days, it has identified as not fit for investment companies that make what are called “autonomous weapons”—in other words, killer robots. So, there are many areas where we need to look carefully at what sort of investments we make.

In the case of small schemes, this is difficult. I advised one such scheme recently. I went to see them and asked, “How many pensioners have you got?” They said, “Oh, 22.” I said, “How do you look after them?” They said, “Oh, X”—naming the person—“in the wages section pays their pension each month when she does the monthly salary run.” I said, “What about the rest?” They said, “Oh, well, the general secretary looks after that. We have a man who comes in twice a year and we pay him, and he keeps us on the right side of the regulator.” This was a scheme with barely three figures’ worth of members in it, and many schemes are like it. We need to look for a way in which such small schemes can transfer their assets without there being any residual liabilities.

One problem is that you can get someone to run your scheme, but if the overall master trust gets into trouble, it can come back to those who have put their schemes in it and make quite unreasonable demands of them. If the number of small schemes is to be slimmed down, there has to be a way of transferring them so that the benefits are guaranteed but there is no comeback for more money. The amount of money required would be actuarily calculated, but it should not be possible to say, “Oh, well, the whole scheme has run into trouble. We know you transferred X years ago, but we now need more money from you”, because it is a direct disincentive.

I shall give another example, of a quite rich London club which, again, has a small scheme. It could quite easily transfer it in—it has huge assets: it could sell one or two of its pictures and cover its pension fund deficit—but it is reluctant to do so in case it received subsequent bills which detracted from the members’ assets. Again, this is something that the Minister and the department could look at in the future. It is outwith this Bill, but it is part of how we need to sort out the pensions legislation and administration for small funds.

My plea to the Government is that when they make the regulations, they remember the small schemes, which probably will not be able to afford the type of administration and advice that big schemes can. They should be encouraged into index trackers, because they are cheap and easy to run and, frankly, return the market, whereas active management charges a lot and does no better. I ask the Minister to look kindly on this amendment. I have never thought of pushing it to a vote; I tabled it to make these points, because I know that she is a sympathetic Minister who would be happy to ask her department in due course to look at the points raised.

Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

I say again to the noble Lord that we are considering the judgment. We are working at pace to find a fix. The universal credit system, which has dealt with a massive increase in applicants, who have been paid, has been agile and flexible to do so. Some issues need to be overcome. They need a digital solution rather than a manual one. We have concentrated on paying people in these very difficult times, but I assure the noble Lord that a digital fix will be found as soon as it can.

[Lord Balfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, people made severe criticism of the digital system of universal credit when it was introduced, but it seems that this design has enabled it to support an unprecedented number of people in recent months—the huge increase the Minister referred to. Would she agree that we could not possibly have done this without the digital changes made by this Government?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

I completely agree with my noble friend. We would never have coped with the increase in demand in universal credit claimants had we not had the digital UC system.

Universal Credit

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I will need to go back to the department and ask whether an assessment has been made. I am mindful of the recent Child Poverty Action Group report and was grateful to receive an advance copy. My officials are carefully considering this, and I hope to be able to write to the Child Poverty Action Group and the Church of England this week to cover the point that the right reverend Prelate just made.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I point out that, as far as I am aware, Labour is not committed to ending the benefit cap; let us start by saying that. It seems that we can never do enough, but would the Minister agree to look very carefully at the situation as it unfolds and confirm that, where we can make minor adjustments, we will? But we have to realise that there is a limit to the amount of money we can spend.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

My noble friend makes a very valid point. These days are very difficult and the situation is fast-changing. We are reviewing and considering things on a daily basis. There is nothing at all in our plan that aims to make life worse for people; in fact, it is quite the opposite. When noble Lords look at what we have done, we have moved quickly and effectively to try to bring additional resource and support into the system.

Covid-19: People Living in Poverty

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the hard work that she has been doing. I note that her team of civil servants have dealt with 1.5 million claims and 250,000 claims for other benefits. They must have been working around the clock and they are to be commended.

I have been interested to hear that virtually everyone who has spoken wants to spend yet more money. We realise that a huge amount has already been spent. I note one comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, who pointed out that we need to look at abroad and to start thinking now not only about how to lift the lockdown, but about how we will pay for what it has cost. This is almost as vital as spreading the money around. There are many things to be done, but we have to pay for them, so we should start looking at how our European colleagues are doing it.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Balfe]

80: After Clause 125, insert the following new Clause—
“Compensation payments under Pension Protection Fund
In Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 omit paragraphs 26, 26A and 27 (compensation cap).”

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

This is a rather technical amendment in many ways. I declare my interest as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association, one of the unions that would be affected by a change in the law such as is suggested here.

Members generally pay into pension schemes on the basis of putting so much in for an accrual rate, which gives them a pension. But if pensions go into the lifeboat, the amount that people can get out is limited. This ruling was originally done for a very good reason: to stop boards of directors awarding themselves large pensions, then a company going bust while they transferred the liability for their excesses into the lifeboat. However, it had an effect which I do not think was foreseen. There are a number of people in the private sector who have quite high earnings and are in pension schemes—at that time largely in DB schemes—and they were affected by this ruling. In short, it meant that people were paying into a scheme but not getting out what they had been paying in for. They were given a promise but it was not honoured, because of the cap that was put in place.

Amendment 80 seeks to review this cap. I accept that it is a complicated matter and would be more than happy if, in responding, the Minister can say that she is prepared to have this added to the subjects we are to discuss at the meeting which has been promised. I recognise that if we were to change the law, we cannot just abolish it. We would need to look at things; in particular, I suggest that we would need to erect some safeguards with reference to accrual rates, so that we would not allow an accrual rate above a reasonable level—possibly 2%. Any person affected would also have to be able to demonstrate that they had paid into the pension scheme over a number of years, and had not been awarded a lump sum of years just before the company went under. There would also have to be maximum contributions for tax relief. In other words, you could not suddenly have a huge contribution going in and building up a large amount of pension.

The amendment is basically aimed at enabling workers who have paid for a pension scheme but happen to be high earners to look forward to getting what they have paid for. I point out that, at the moment, the main people affected would be those who used to work for Monarch. But I would not like to predict where, for instance, the British Airways pension scheme will be 10 years from now. The Spanish company that is now the owner of BA might well be in a position where, for some reason or other, it is not able to fully honour the pension agreement. It is better to look at it now than to do so then.

I also make the point that most high earners in society are covered by public sector pension schemes. The people who work in the health service, for instance, are covered by the health service scheme; senior civil servants are covered by the civil service scheme; most people in the nuclear industry are covered by a public sector scheme. It is often forgotten that even in private schools, the staff are actually in a government-backed scheme. There is a lot of debate going on at the moment because the costs for private schools that pay into the Department for Education-funded scheme have increased considerably. None the less, teachers in private schools are covered by a public scheme.

As I said at the beginning, I ask only that the Minister would kindly agree to add this to the agenda. It is a problem that is capable of being solved. It is not quite as simple as my amendment suggests—I accept that—but putting forward this amendment was basically the only way of dealing with the scheme as it stands. Quite a bit of legislation, in the form of statutory instruments, would be needed to cover the way in which any deviation or loosening of the scheme was governed, because it is emphatically not the intention of this amendment to free up pension schemes so that irresponsible boards of directors could award themselves large pensions. This is to do with workers who have paid into a pension scheme for many years and are unwittingly caught by the cap because their employer is unable to fulfil its pension obligations.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I have added my name to this amendment. I support my noble friend and echo his request to the Minister for a meeting to discuss this issue further. I understand that it may not be possible to arrange immediately, and needs careful consideration, but, given the rulings in court cases and so on, it may be worth trying to address some of these issues, which are clearly causing distress to an important, albeit small, number of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe]

I thank noble Lords for this short, but interesting, debate. An interesting part of my role is that when David Cameron said, “Try to be helpful to as many trade unions as you can”, I seem to have collected some of the higher paid trade unions such as those for hospital consultants, British airline pilots and one or two others in the TUC. It is always great fun to go down to the TUC Congress, meet them there and hear them muttering away. I take the points that have been made. The feeling arose largely out of the Monarch situation in which a number of people had paid a considerable amount in yet they were not getting what they saw as fair recompense. The point made to me, which I am sure will be made again, was that if they were in the public sector, there would be no case for them going into the Pension Protection Fund because public sector funds do not go there, but because they were in the private sector—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The point the noble Lord makes about public sector funds is right, but in trying to make comparisons between somebody with a public sector pension and people who are not in that position, all sorts of differentials come into play, such as general levels of remuneration. With great respect, I do not think the noble Lord’s argument stands up in that respect.

[Lord Balfe]

Perhaps I mix with rather affluent members of the medical profession. I had a session recently with a hospital consultant staff association, which made some very firm points about how high earners were being discriminated against. I am not making the hospital consultants’ point here. I am making the point that the public sector basically has a system of protection so that when a Permanent Secretary or a member of the First Division Association retires, there is no case that the FDA pension will ever go into the lifeboat. I was making the point that was made to me, which was that members were paying into a fund that they were not receiving benefit from and that if they had been in the public sector they would. I am very pleased that the Minister has offered to discuss this, although having heard the response I am not sure that the discussion is going to lead very far. I am pleased that we have had this constructive debate and on the basis of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 80 withdrawn.