Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. On this very point about the transparency of transaction costs, my understanding of the Government’s amendment is that they have given themselves the power to exempt from transparency where there are existing FCA rules in relation to transparency. The existing FCA rules on transparency exempt transaction costs, so how will the transaction costs in such cases be dealt with?

[Lord Freud]

I am putting it on the record that we will aim to capture all costs, including all transaction costs. As noble Lords know only too well, when you look into this legislation there are bits and pieces scattered all over the place, but I can summarise it in that very simple sentence. It is very similar to the point about proposed new subsection (6): it is just a drafting requirement that we do not overlay things and that we have a clear line. It is not to do with the EU.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was concerned about my overconcentration on my noble friend Lord Lawson. I did not mean to do any airbrushing but I did mean to concentrate on the fact that I believe that my noble friend Lord Lawson’s amendments in Grand Committee and at this stage have been especially helpful in pushing this whole debate forward.

Turning to Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I would actually be very disappointed in the noble Lord if he was to decide to test the opinion of the House. I have been absolutely clear about the timing of government action. I do not understand why he would want to start stipulating in primary legislation the timing of when regulations would be brought, given the language that I am using to talk about what we are doing.

Even though I may not satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, with the clarity of my expression, I will go through what we are doing. Consultations have sought views on policy implementation. Employers made clear that they wanted sufficient notice of any new scheme requirements. The Minister remains strongly minded to cap charges and, as former Ministers know and can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, significant policy decisions must go through due process, but the Government response is coming soon.

I hope that I have made it utterly, utterly clear what will happen. That is the reason that I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to test the opinion of the House, because that seems purely political, given what I have just said, and that is not in the spirit—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, Amendment 31A, which stands in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, proposes the addition of a simple clause to the Bill. The clause would require the provision of an independent annuity brokerage service or the offer of such a service to all members pending retirement. The clause goes on in later provisions to set out how best practice should be defined and maintained in the brokerage service offered to the retiring member or to which he or she is directed. It calls for an independent brokerage service to assist people to annuitise at the point of retirement. This is hardly a radical proposal. It fits the description of best practice and is what many employers with DC pension schemes already offer.

The ABI code of practice says that providers should tell people decumulating that they can shop around and transfer the funds to another provider and advise them to seek advice before so doing. However, that is not enough. As Dan Hyde wrote in an article in the Telegraph in December:

“The process starts with a ‘wake-up’ pack sent to savers months before their named retirement age, in which pages of often unintelligible information, packaged in unhelpful ways, baffle even the well-informed”.

Of course, people can purchase their own independent financial advice but the majority do not retain or use independent financial advisers or accountants. A one-off appointment would be expensive—equivalent to a week’s take-home pay for workers on average wage—even if they knew where to go.

Undoubtedly, employers’ firms can negotiate a better rate but the scandal of annuities is well known and widespread. In one sense, how often do we need to be told? Only last week, in yet another report, the Financial Conduct Authority confirmed again that the annuities market is not working and that it is disorderly. The number of adjectives that can now be found to describe financial services markets is interesting. The Financial Conduct Authority has ordered a further review but we need immediate action. Each week, more than 1,000 people are buying annuities and those transactions are irreversible. Once bought, you cannot change your mind and getting the right one can be the equivalent of an extra £1,500 in savings. With respect to the FCA, it hardly needs another competition market study to find out why consumers do not shop around. The problem is that the pension companies which sell them are simply not doing enough to explain to people that they can shop around.

When this amendment was debated in Grand Committee the Minister used the same diversionary tactic as Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister, did in the Commons and as the Minister who responded to the Westminster Hall debate on annuities did too. Depressingly, I fear that the Minister can be expected to repeat that argument today. It is all very well to suggest that those reaching retirement age can do many other things—other than plan for an annuity—but it is insufficient, in the face of the continued mass selling of inappropriate annuities, to say to people that they have many different opportunities and need lots of different advice beyond annuities. The fact is that the variety in the annuities offered and the deals available is considerable. Those people—1,000 of them each week—need independent support and advice right now.

The need for independent advice at this point may be obvious but the reasons for it are worth repeating. First, on the complexity of choosing the right annuity option, annuities are a complex product and decumulation is a complex process. Comparison between the providers is difficult. Before we debated this in Committee, I saw a quote for an annuity pot of only £30,000. In one short e-mail the following terms were contained: single life, level escalation, anticipated bonus rates and required smooth return rates—every single one of which was without an explanation. It offered four choices to a “conventional lifetime quotation” annuity described as income-choice annuity or with-profit annuity, and out of nine total options the rates varied between £700 and £1,400, with most around the £1,200 mark. It is no wonder, with such complexity, that no one should exercise a choice without advice; and so it is no wonder that over 50% of people just go with their existing provider.

The first comparator website has been launched. This is a step in the right direction. However, the independent pensions consultant, Ros Altmann, who gave evidence to the Commons committee, did not think that it was simple. She said that it was disappointing and not easy to use. Annuities are complex products with multi-options and perhaps there never can be a simple comparison site.

At this point I intend to repeat questions that I posed to the Minister in Grand Committee. They demand answers from the Government, to explain their resistance to this amendment, and they were not answered when we were in Committee.

First, does the Minister accept that annuities are complex and that people need independent advice? Does he accept that purchasing that advice is beyond the grasp of most people, particularly those with no knowledge of investments? If he does so accept, how does he suggest that those who need this advice now can be guaranteed to get it?

Secondly, the variety in the kinds of annuities offered and the deals that people can get is bewildering. The NAPF and others have said that annuitising with the pension scheme provider pays on average 20% less than shopping around. In effect, inertia, or being overwhelmed by the complexity of making a choice, is exploited by pension providers. Insurers are making excessive profits from purchasers failing to shop around. On “Newsnight”, Ros Altmann said that if you had an annuity with the worst performers you would have to live until you were 100 to get back just what you had paid in.

Inertia, as I say, is a powerful force that results in excess profits for insurers. They penalise you, not reward you, for loyalty. Estimates suggest that £1 billion of retirement income is being lost to savers every year just by the force of inertia. The report of the FCA Consumer Panel—the FSCP—was published in December and made many points. I have drawn on these points before in debating this issue and I do so again because they are so powerful.

First, the tactics used by insurance companies and brokers were “tantamount to burglary” of old-age pensioners. The report said that it is nearly impossible for pensioners to know whether they are getting a good deal. Pensioners are hit by excessive profits and exploitative pricing. Insurance companies are making 20 times more profits on annuities than any other financial product. As for poor returns, on a pot of £100,000 Clerical Medical offers £4,664 per annum while Reliance Mutual offers £6,111. Over their expected lifetime people would be just over £36,000 worse off if they made the wrong choice.

As for opaque charges, brokers are incentivised to sell particular products; in some cases they make 6%, or £12,000, on a pot of £200,000. There are sharp practices with brokers shopping around, resulting in a referral fee from each. Many also have exploitative pricing; that is, they have sold a product for a fit person when they are not fit, or an adviser neglects to tell people of other products such as income drawdown because the profit margins are slimmer. Companies can make £35,000 profit over 25 years on a pot of £100,000. I have to say that that was the finding of the report, although the figure was denied by the ABI. The ABI has not, however, said what profit is made.

As your Lordships will be aware, the Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, commissioned a review of annuities from the FCA which reported last week. To no one’s surprise, the FCA concluded that the annuities market was not working. It was “disorderly”, according to the FCA’s chief executive, and the watchdog’s report suggested that four out of five consumers could get a higher income by just shopping around. To many people’s frustration and disappointment, after this extensive review the FCA said that it would launch a further review, a competition market study, to find out what we all already know. Consumers will now have to wait many more months for this second-stage investigation before regulatory action of some description can be started. In the face of 1,000 people a week still making this irreversible decision, that is not good enough.

People who have gone without, who have diligently saved throughout their working lives, are being systematically “burgled”, to use the FSCP’s word, by a profit-hungry industry and its associated sales force. Annuities are building up to be the next scandal and mis-selling crisis. The sector will not sort itself out. We need to strengthen the buyer side, and Parliament needs to take action on behalf of savers. If we do not sort out annuities we will undermine auto-enrolment. This proposed new clause, if accepted, will provide people with guaranteed access—or at least the offer of it—to an independent annuity brokerage service at the point of decision. It will strengthen the buyer side. Annuities are one area of pension policy where the buyer deals directly with the provider and makes choices. With independent support these choices will be better informed choices. Access to an independent service will protect savers from making poor choices that could reduce their income by up to 20%. This small step may help divert us away from the next financial mis-selling scandal—or at least protect Parliament from the criticism that it failed to act when presented with the evidence of the need to do so.

I think that the information I have laid before your Lordships makes the case for the need to provide an independent annuity brokerage service, or at least the offer of such a service, to pension scheme members who are approaching retirement to help the member make wise choices. There are already 400,000 people annuitising each year, and this number will escalate from 2020 onwards when the impact of auto-enrolment starts to kick in. I again urge the Minister to accept the need for it now and in the future. I beg to move.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this amendment is identical to the one that we debated in Committee. I will confirm the government position for the record, as well as respond to the new points made.

The Financial Conduct Authority has confirmed the Government’s concerns that the way the annuity market operates may be disadvantaging consumers. This may be—in the language of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton—“tantamount to burglary”, and it clearly continues to be of great concern to the Government. We recognise that it is critical that individuals make the right decision about their retirement income, because some of these decisions are ultimately irreversible. However, the solution offered by this amendment is not the answer to a problem which I acknowledge.

What are the Government doing? First, we are supporting the consumer to make a decision that is right for them. We are leading on and supporting a wide range of initiatives aimed at driving up standards among providers, providing guidance to trustees and educating members. The ABI code of practice is designed to tackle the worst of the inertia selling practices—for example, removing the application form from the pack. It talks about the three decisions that the consumer needs to make: whether they should retire now; what type of income is appropriate—it may be annuities, but it may not be—and telling the consumer how to get a better deal on the open market.

Secondly, the new Pensions Regulator guidance sets out expectations for what trustees should provide for their members. Thirdly, the Money Advice Service is developing its services for people approaching retirement age. Fourthly, the National Association of Pension Funds has published a guide to trustees and employees about the benefits to scheme members of support at retirement and the range of options available to them on the open market.

Those are just some examples of the initiatives that have recently been delivered under this Government. In addition, the noble Lord mentioned the Financial Conduct Authority’s thematic review of annuities and the fact that it has launched a market study on the annuity market. He did not seem to welcome that wholeheartedly but we are very pleased that the FCA has decided to take this step; it is this Government’s changes to the FCA’s objectives that have enabled it do so. HMT and the DWP are currently reviewing the broad range of available research and statistics on at-retirement options, but with emerging findings from the FCA we will have the evidence to inform any further action required.

On the issue of independent advice, individuals already have access to free and independent information and guidance via the Money Advice Service and the Pensions Advisory Service. I need to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is a board member of the latter organisation.

I come to the core of why this amendment is not the right response. Indeed, it is rather funny that the noble Lord was quoting examples of sharp practice, with brokers shopping around and not informing their clients of the income drawdown. This is the point about, “While there is a problem, this is not the solution”. Making annuity brokers the first port of call for all would simply create a captive market for one part of the industry without effectively adding to consumer protections. Annuity brokers, unless they are also FCA-regulated advisers, are not required to ensure that the product is suitable for the consumer. I must be absolutely clear on this point: this measure would not provide the member with regulated advice. The Financial Services Consumer Panel recently published a report identifying a number of risks for the consumer in going down the non-advised route.

This measure would therefore push people down a brokerage route and could lead to the next mis-selling crisis, not help to avoid it, as the noble Lord suggested. The amendment as it stands would mean that people would be been pushed into receiving non-regulated advice and might end up locked into unsuitable products without recourse to the protections that regulated advice affords. Furthermore, the measure focuses almost exclusively on annuities; it makes reference to information on alternative at-retirement products, but it has to be recognised that annuity brokers are not necessarily impartial—they make their money if a member buys an annuity. Indeed, that is a point that the noble Lord made in his own speech.

This Government’s position is that it is essential for people to understand all their options, not just annuities, and to work with relevant bodies to ensure that appropriate help is available. Clearly, our work is not complete. However, we do not believe that this amendment, pushing people down a single product path, is the right solution. We are committed to ensuring that consumers have the information that they need to make good choices and that the annuities market works effectively for consumers. It is ongoing work but we will continue to challenge the industry if there is no significant improvement. The Financial Conduct Authority’s review findings will be vital in that assessment.

While I welcome the debate, which is clearly an important one, this amendment would not deliver what the Opposition actually want. It risks making things worse for the consumer. It would legislate to make annuities the foremost option for deriving a retirement income when this may actually not be the right route for many, especially those with small pots. It would put the responsibility for providing information to members solely in the hands of annuity brokers, leaving many without the protections afforded by regulated advice. As I said, if that is not a potential mis-selling scandal, I would like to know what is.

I would like the noble Lord not to test the opinion of the House on this because he should not, and he does not actually want to push it.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He failed when he played that card last time; he should have learnt.

The use of the word “burglary”, which is not one that comes easily to a Scottish lawyer because we in Scotland have no such concept, is not mine but is from the FSCP’s report. The report which looked into this described such behaviour as tantamount to burglary. I deploy the word because it is evocative but also because it describes quite well what is going on.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s ambition in this regard, which is far-reaching, complicated and, I understand, ambitious, but the scandal continues. While we discuss the complexity of all this and indeed add further complexities to it, 1,000 people a week, most probably through inertia, are buying annuities, many of which are tantamount to burglary of their savings. We are suggesting with this amendment that we must do what we can to try to stem that process, while all the other complex things that need to be done—I accept the detail and the challenge of that—can be done. The scale of the scandal demands a deep and wide perspective of responses; I accept that. However, there is something we can do about this. Given that these people are going down this path without independent advice, the purpose of the amendment is to get them access to that information and that service so that they can make choices.

I now come, in just a few sentences, to the core issue that the Minister used as his principal push-back against this amendment. I suspect that he did not read all of the amendment carefully enough. Had he got as far as proposed new subsection (3), he would have seen that all this advice has to be best practice, defined by the Pensions Regulator after public consultation—a form of regulation—and that that process has to be subject to a continuing review. It was intended, in the flexible sort of way in which I have got used to this Government working, to provide a process of engagement, discussion and consultation that allowed best practice to develop in this area and to improve the performance of those people who provide independent annuity brokerage services. This is a model that I have learnt, in my time in your Lordships’ House, from the conduct of the coalition Government. I commend it to the Minister, I commend it to the House and I wish to test the House’s support for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 32 I will speak also to government Amendments 33 to 41.

As noble Lords will be aware, we are proposing to change the compensation cap in the Pension Protection Fund to recognise long service in a scheme. The standard cap shall be increased by 3% for each year of pensionable service over 20 years. Schedule 20 contains most of the provisions needed to implement the long-service cap. However, some technical amendments are needed to reflect particular situations and I shall address them in groups.

Amendments 32 to 34 deal with the identification of pensionable service for certain individuals—obviously an important issue, given that the long-service cap kicks in once a person has 21 years of service. For example, a person who has been a member of a scheme for 10 years has that amount of pensionable service. However, they might also have transferred into that scheme a pension built up in a previous employment. Where the PPF has deemed service, say 15 years, in respect of this transfer, these amendments will permit the two periods to be added together so that the individual will be treated as if they had 25 years’ service in total.

Amendments 37 and 38 deal with a scheme in the process of assessment when the legislation commences, where the scheme applies for the decision not to transfer the scheme to the PPF to be reconsidered. While the application is being considered, the current cap will apply for the purposes of assessing the scheme’s protected liabilities.

Amendments 35, 36, 39 and 40 are needed to clarify the scope of the legislation dealing with those who are in receipt of compensation when the long-service cap becomes law, for people sharing compensation and with benefits entitlements arising at different times. Amendment 41 is a minor correction needed to the current legislation.

In Grand Committee, the Government tabled a new clause, now Clause 50, dealing with the compensation cap. As my noble friend Lord Bates explained at the time, the clause was needed to ensure that the legislation reflects the policy and current practice when applying the compensation cap separately to compensation based on benefits deriving from different sources which are payable on the same day—for example, where an individual has entitlement to a pension but also a pension credit deriving from a divorce settlement. Clause 50 has a retrospective effect so as to cover payments already made. However, it applies only to cases where the two benefits were payable on the same date.

Amendment 41 is needed to provide retrospective cover in cases where compensation derived from different sources is payable on different dates. It modifies the relevant provision of the Pensions Act 2004 to allow us to bring forward regulations that have a retrospective effect, so that such payments already made in accordance with the accepted policy and practice are covered.

Getting the long-service cap into legislation has been a long process, requiring amendments at various stages of the Bill, and I thank noble Lords for their patience. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I welcome these amendments. In doing so, I take the opportunity to ask for an assurance that entitlement to a pension credit secured by a spouse as part of a divorce settlement will not be weakened by any of these amendments. If the Minister is unable to respond immediately to that, I will be content for him to write in due course.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that position is not affected by these amendments.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Whitty, who have robustly set out a fundamental challenge to Clause 24 and Schedule 13, which I think the Minister is required to engage with. Would the noble Lord and the Pensions Minister argue that the loss of the rebate, without some consequential provisions, would lead to the closure of defined benefit schemes? In short, my noble friends argue that this is where it will lead, even with the override which is designed to prevent their loss. There is a fundamental difference which deserves to be addressed in the way specifically asked for by my noble friend Lord Whitty. I am sure that the Minister will be conscious of that.

On the issue of protected persons, I welcome the Government’s concession, set out in Amendment 14, confirming that they will honour the specific undertaking given to the members of these schemes to encourage them to accept privatisation of the industries for which they worked. That is exactly why this undertaking was given to them. It has been promised for some time. Belated it may be in its delivery, but it is none the less welcome and it will be a relief to the 60,000 or more members of those identifiable schemes who have been awaiting this decision.

My noble friend Lord Whitty raised an interesting question about whether this concession can be made to apply in some form to gas workers who have a similar undertaking, but which was enshrined in a different way. I would be interested in what the Minister says about that.

Were my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 11 enacted it would ensure that:

“The power conferred … on employers to amend occupational pension schemes does not override the powers and duties of Trustees of such schemes nor any duty to consult members of such schemes and their representatives”.

To the extent that this amendment requires consultation with trustees, we support it. We had an extensive debate on these issues in Grand Committee and I made clear then that our position is one of broad agreement with the change to a single-tier pension and the aim of introducing simplicity into the state pension system. We also accepted that this required an end to contracting out. However, we agreed with the arguments put forward in Committee by my noble friend Lady Drake that statutory overrides are strong measures and should be used with care in all cases, at the very least requiring an employer to consult pension trustees before exercising the power to amend a pension scheme.

It would be to the benefit of understanding the Government’s position if the Minister would make clear in his response why the Government had set their face against consultation with trustees, especially when it is preserved in the statutory requirement to consult scheme members. It surely cannot be the case that the different approach to these forms of consultation is that consultation with trustees would be meaningful, but that consultation with individual members would be anything but—indeed it would be pointless. Like my noble friend Lord Whitty, I hope that the Minister’s response to Amendment 12 will be that it is unnecessary. It is my view that this is an expression of the current state of the law.

Finally, my noble friend raised an interesting point about public sector pensions, from his knowledge of the understandings that appear to have been implied by the meeting with the LGA. We would all be interested to know when further follow-up can be expected.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, under the current system it is possible for defined benefit schemes to contract out of the additional state pension, giving up entitlement for additional state pension in return for a broadly similar occupational pension and payment of a lower national insurance rate for both employer and employee. When single tier is introduced, there will no longer be an additional state pension for defined benefit schemes to contract out of. Employers with such schemes will therefore no longer receive a national insurance rebate in respect of contracted-out members.

Employers will need to find ways to recoup the costs that the loss of the rebate brings. Unless they are able to do that, many employers will be forced to close their schemes. Clearly, members are not served by their pension schemes closing and the Government are committed to supporting the continuation of defined benefit pension provision. To that end, we are providing a statutory override to allow private sector employers to make limited changes to their schemes to adjust for the additional cost due to the end of contracting out. This is part of our wider state pension reforms. The majority of contracted-out workers in the private sector who reach state pension age in the first two decades of single tier will get enough extra state pension to offset the increase in national insurance they will pay over the rest of their working lives and any potential adjustments to their occupational pension schemes.

Noble Lords have made clear their concerns that the override is not abused by employers and that trustees and members are properly consulted about any changes. I fully recognise those concerns. The override allows for limited changes to future accruals and/or future contributions where the scheme rules would otherwise prevent that. I make it absolutely clear that the override does not permit the employer to ignore other rules about how the scheme operates. For example, it does not mean that an employer can avoid notifying trustees or members of a change, or refuse to carry out a consultation, if scheme rules would require this. Indeed, existing legislation requires that members are consulted on any significant rule changes before they are made. In response to the query from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that will remain the case. In addition, we have every reason to believe that employers will want to engage with trustees about how best to respond to the end of contracting out and believe it is in their best interest to do so.

Schedule 14 provides important safeguards, such as limits on the use of the override to prevent an employer from making changes beyond those necessary to recoup their increase in national insurance contributions, the need for an actuary to certify the changes and protection for members’ accrued rights. We will put further safeguards in regulations—for example, to ensure that the employer cannot create their own assumptions for the purposes of the calculation but must draw on existing assumptions used by the scheme.

Amendment 11 concerns protection for trustee powers and duties. As I have said, the override does not prevent the scheme operating normally. The only powers or duties that the override applies to—and therefore that the amendment would protect—are those that require trustee consent to changes or provide that only trustees can change scheme rules. Where these powers stay in place, they would make the override unusable, which in turn could encourage employers to close their scheme. Amendment 11 also seeks to ensure that the statutory override does not trump any duty to consult scheme members and their representatives. Such an amendment is unnecessary as scheme rules and existing legislation requiring member and representative consultation are not affected by the override.

The Government recognise that a trustee’s fiduciary duty to the scheme’s members may put them in a difficult position if they are required to agree scheme changes that, at face value, are detrimental to the member. However, the statutory override does not prevent the employer from engaging with the trustees on any scheme changes they are considering. It is in the employer’s interest to engage with trustees on proposed changes. Trustees are responsible for administering the pension scheme. All schemes need lead time before any changes can take place, to allow for IT systems to be updated and changes to the title deed to be made.

Part of Amendment 12 seeks to protect current members’ accrued rights. The Government absolutely agree that any accrued rights should be protected and preserved, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble Lords that the Bill already provides such protection by way of paragraph 3 of Schedule 14. This refers to the protection of “subsisting rights”—the term used in pension legislation—for both scheme members and their survivors.

Amendment 12 would also remove the stipulation that changes made in respect of future members have to correspond to changes made in respect of current members. It is important to remember that the override will enable employers to offset the additional cost of national insurance that arises from April 2016. The amendment would broaden the override. An employer could set different contribution rates or different rates of accrual for current and future members. I do not believe that that would be right. The increased national insurance costs to the employer from 2016 will be the same for both groups of members, and the Bill as drafted ensures that the override reflects that.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Monday 13th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

It does not count. I can answer that straightaway because the discussions on the welfare cap have been around working-age benefits, not pension benefits. The Labour Party may have been discussing a wider pension cap but that is not what we—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

It is the pension cap that this Committee is discussing. I am grateful for that clarification, which was appropriate at this time.

Finally, there are the decision points for individuals. Will they get advice on whether they should buy class 3A contributions? After all, there are significant considerations for individuals, such as their life expectancy, which may be significantly affected by where they live in the United Kingdom; whether they are married or in a civil partnership, or likely to be so; and what other income or savings they have—and, therefore, whether it is a good idea, if it may affect their entitlement to incapability benefits, for example. After all, if someone with £10,000 in savings decided to spend £4,000 of those in buying another £5 in income, would they not simply lose that in pension credit and have 40% less of their savings? For all the reasons that we have discussed, those savings may be necessary at later stages in their life. Crucially, who would sell this to them? In the context of the briefing that we received from the Minister’s team, we were told that engagement between the purchasers of this and the Government would be through the Treasury. Does that mean that the Treasury will have certain responsibilities to people who call to inquire about buying these class 3A contributions? If so, how will they be discharged?

There are many questions to ask. The Committee will not be surprised if the Minister cannot answer them all now, because, with respect, he was unable to answer even any of his own questions on his introductory remarks. We may have to wait and see about some of the detail. I understand the reasons for haste; this legislative vehicle is important for this initiative and, if it proves to be positive, that is a good thing. But the scheme was rushed out in the Autumn Statement and added on to the Bill when it had gone through another place. We have no costings or details on price, and no idea how it will be administered—but we still look forward very much to the Minister’s reply.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I have no idea how many persons Clause 6 is expected to relate to, but it seems to be a discrete and relatively small group of pensioners. As I understand it, it deals with those who, after the start date, leave a contracted-out pension scheme where, under the rules of the scheme, they are not entitled to a pension and their transitional rate will be calculated as if they have never been contracted out before, and thereafter by reference to Schedule 1 which will set out the rules whereby that transitional rate will be calculated.

Amendments 25 to 29, as my noble friends have explained, all have similar intentions behind them. They refer particularly to the revaluation of the foundation amount and the protected accrued state pension amount above the single-tier amount for people with pre-commencement qualifying years of practicable pensionable age. As my noble friends have explained, the amendments are designed to ensure that for the revaluation of the foundation amount and the amount in excess of the full single-tier state pension, the protected payment would be in line with average annual increases in earnings as opposed to annual increases in general price levels. I hope that I have understood the effect of these complicated amendments. Currently, the Bill specifies that the valuation of the foundation amount up to the full rate of the state pension is to be revalued by earnings and any excess over that rate is to be revalued in line with the annual increase in the general level of prices.

For all those reasons articulated by my noble friends, which it would be otiose to repeat, I look forward to the Minister’s assessment of my noble friend’s amendment. I ask him to address these additional questions when he responds to the amendment. How will the public be informed of these changes to their pension entitlement in order to ensure that they are able to make adequate preparation for a secure retirement? In the words of my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Whitty, will they be able to calibrate their expectations? Do the Government plan to review these arrangements at some time in the future? My noble friend Lord Whitty asked a very pertinent question: what are the cost implications of these amendments? In my estimation, they appear to relate to a comparatively small number of people. If the Minister is not able to tell us, will he come back to my noble friend before Report so that that information can inform the debate, if it takes place then?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I explain the principle behind having protected payments. We recognise that some people who will reach pensionable age under the single tier will already have amounts of additional pension which take them over the full single-tier rate. A key consideration in the design of the transition was that this extra would not be taken away. Revaluing the protected payment, at least by increases in prices, will maintain its purchasing power over time.

Let me deal directly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about fairness in relation to expectations. Under the current system, the additional state pension is revalued up to state pension age in line with average earnings, but is then indexed only by prices once in payment. A man retiring in the first 10 years of single tier could expect to spend, on average, 20 years in retirement. In single tier, we have shifted this balance between adjustments before and after pensionable age, and the majority of people receiving protected payments will be better off overall as a result of this shift.

In the current system, only basic state pension is uprated by a minimum of earnings. In the future, the full amount of the single-tier pension would be uprated in this way. So using the 2012-13 White Paper figures, this means that people will see the illustrative £144 of their state pension being uprated each year by earnings, or more—potentially the triple lock—not just £107. People with a protected payment will be relatively close to pension age, so the revaluation will typically be applied only for a few years. So, for example, even someone with an above average protected payment of £20 with 10 years left until they reach retirement would find that revaluation leaves them £4 per week worse off upon reaching pensionable age, but £4 better off 10 years later.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would effectively incorporate earnings revaluation of the protected payment into single tier. As this is a cost-neutral package of reforms, we would need to make offsetting changes elsewhere. Given that we expect most people to be better off from the combined revaluation and uprating changes, this would be difficult to justify. To give noble Lords a response to their question about the costs we are talking about, I can tell them that using earnings to revalue the protected payment would have annual costs, which would peak at around £150 in about 2040.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I intend to make a very short contribution to this debate. As my noble friend Lady Hollis made clear in her introductory remarks, this is a simple amendment. If it can be simple and complex in its implications at the same time, then that is what it is. I have no intention of trying to replicate or supplement my noble friend’s understanding of the complexity of this issue, and the implications of the decisions that face people in these very difficult circumstances. My understanding of the element of the pension that can be split by the courts on divorce is as my noble friend Lord McKenzie explained it. We benefited from a briefing from the Minister’s supporting civil servants which, as always, we were grateful to receive; it was very clear and helpful.

We have heard from my noble friend Lady Hollis about some of the challenges and problems that face divorced women in particular, or women in the context of divorce, about the choices that they have to make. They may well spend some significant time thereafter before receiving pension payments, not knowing or losing track of the details of their pension-splitting arrangements. As a supplementary to the questions asked by my noble friend, and because I do not know the answer, can the Minister tell the Committee if there are arrangements in place by which the courts or the legal profession—the justice system—in some fashion notify the DWP of such arrangements? If they do, what are they? If people are not to be sent regular statements of pension credits or debits, how else would the Minister suggest that this information gap be addressed?

Before I sit down, I want to take the opportunity to provide the Minister with the chance to put on the official record information about a very discrete point relating to the devolution settlement, and the implications of these provisions about pension sharing on an area of devolved responsibility. In this Bill, necessarily, there are consequential amendments to the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. As most of us have come to know, the devolution settlement requires certain rules to be applied to circumstances where we in this Parliament legislate in areas which are otherwise devolved—and family law is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am satisfied—because I raised this matter with the Minister’s civil servants and received an e-mail explanation on 13 December—that this issue has been discussed with both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I was told that the Scottish Government were content, within the scope of the devolution settlement; that the provisions in the Pensions Bill fall under a particular category in the devolved guidance that allows legislative provisions to be enacted here without the necessity for the normal processes. I think this is called a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament. I am speaking long enough for the Minister to find some words that he can put into the official record. I am sure he will understand why it would help if there was some recognition of these discussions and the agreement of the Scottish Government to this Parliament legislating in these potentially contentious areas which would otherwise be devolved. I hope I have made myself clear that it would be helpful if that could be addressed in the response to this amendment.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, by way of background, the additional state pension can be considered as an asset in a divorce settlement and the department is responsible for administering pension-sharing orders ordered by the courts. Basic state pension is not included as an asset to be shared, nor will the new single-tier pension be shareable. However, share orders in respect of additional state pension which are made before the single-tier pension is introduced will still stand and, from 2016, only the protected payment—the excess above the full single-tier pension—will be considered in any share order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I speak to the amendment and to Amendment 31B which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. These are simple probing amendments which need not detain the Committee for long. Clause 16(4) says:

“A person may not opt to suspend his or her entitlement to a state pension under this Part on more than one occasion”.

Clause 16(5) says:

“Regulations may specify other circumstances in which a person may not opt to suspend his or her entitlement to a state pension under this Part”.

My question is simple. Can the Minister please explain the need for these subsections and what circumstances they are intended to cover? I beg to move.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the simple answer is one word: simplicity. However, I will embellish a little. Clauses 16, 17 and 18 allow people to defer their single-tier pension at state pension age in order to build up an increase to their pension. These provisions broadly mirror the deferral arrangements in the current scheme.

Clause 16 specifically provides for the individual to suspend their single-tier pension only once after they have started to receive it, as is the case in the current state pension scheme. This will be particularly important for those who are not certain of their likely retirement income until they have reached state pension age but who could benefit from the ability to suspend their pension and build up weekly increments. At the moment, pensioners can only do this once under the current scheme. This enables people who want to return to work or increase their hours to manage their tax position more effectively. For example if they have the opportunity to work and no longer require their state pension to support themselves, they will be able to suspend their pension and therefore lower their taxable income for that period. They will then build up an increase to their single-tier pension which will be payable when they reclaim it.

The amendments would remove any restriction on the number of times a person may opt to give up their entitlement to a single-tier pension. It introduces new complexity for individuals planning for their retirement and administrative complexity for the department. Allowing people to de-retire later in life increases the risk that they will not live long enough to break even. It would only really make sense for people who would see a significant tax benefit from not claiming their state pension for certain periods of time. Having the option to suspend their state pension once strikes a balance between giving people the flexibility to return to work and manage their tax position after claiming their state pension and ensuring the system remains as simple as possible. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, to the extent to which he responded. I had hoped, however, that he would have gone further and, in particular, engaged with Clause 16(5), giving noble Lords some indication as to under what circumstances the Government expect that they would want to further curtail the option to suspend. Maybe the Minister has something of an answer to that coming to him at the moment.

I had hoped that the Minister would say that there is a very narrow set of circumstances to which the regulations that could be promulgated under Clause 16(5) would relate, and give some assurance that it was not the Government’s intention to use these powers extensively but in a narrow way, with reference to at least one set of circumstances for which they were planned.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the power provides the flexibility to respond quickly should the need arise to amend the scheme—for example, if there is a group of people to whom it would be inappropriate to offer the opportunity to improve their pension once it was been claimed. Under the current scheme, if the individual is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain or another EEA member state and has claimed their pension, they will not normally be able to suspend it in order to build up an increase. The inclusion of this power means that we can use secondary legislation to mirror the current position for the suspension of a single-tier pension. The amendment would mean that any modification of the option to elect to suspend a single-tier pension would require a degree of parliamentary scrutiny via the primary procedure that would be disproportionate to that change.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with the challenge that I encouraged him to engage with. I am not entirely sure that it satisfies my curiosity over the need for this power, but this is an issue to which we can return later, perhaps in correspondence. In the mean time—

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, so that we do not waste a lot of extra time on this matter, this replicates the power that we have in the current scheme and does no more than that. There is no substantial change going on or any intentionality towards using it in a different way.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I reassure the Minister that I do not see any malevolent intention masked by this power. It occurs to me that if there is no purpose in this element of the existing structure, there is no purpose in replicating the existing structure, but I do not intend to expand this debate into such philosophical discussions. At the moment, I am content that the issue has been raised and will consider the Minister’s response to it. If I am satisfied when I see it in writing, we will not return to this. If I am not, we may return to this issue. In the mean time, though, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, in speaking to these amendments, I seek to achieve a better and more precise understanding of the nature of the Government’s objections to the taking of lump sums. My noble friend Lady Hollis has done your Lordships’ Committee two favours. One is in raising this issue, which has captured the mood of the Committee quite clearly. The second is in rehearsing accurately the explanation by Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister, in the House of Commons, as to why there is opposition to the taking of lump sums. In my recollection, the arguments were as thin as my noble friend made clear.

My noble friends, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, have explained very clearly the case for allowing lump sums. Undoubtedly there is a savings crisis. Too many people do not have the safety net of a rainy day fund or, in some cases, of any fund at all. British households do not have enough money in savings, and the amount they do have has been falling in recent years. This is, perhaps, unsurprising given the cost of living crisis that we have been experiencing. The data on this are very persuasive. ONS data show that 6% of pensioners—over half a million people—live in households where the total financial wealth is less than £10,000. Half—more than 4.8 million—live in a household where it is less than £20,000. However, that is not the whole story. Given the distribution within those bands, there must be a significant number of retirees with little or no cash available in savings. Interestingly, the ninth annual Scottish Widows pensions report stated that, of those already retired, one-third are still paying off debts, including mortgages. The average amount owed is in excess of £5,500—£5,682 to be precise. It is not as if those people are in a position to add to their savings in retirement. In a survey in June 2013, the insurance giants LV reported that nearly 2 million pensioners have an average £8 per week of disposable income. By way of comparison, that is less than the average eight year-old has as pocket money, according to another survey.

The case made by my noble friends and the right reverend Prelate about why people might need access to a lump sum deserves an answer. The lump-sum payment option was introduced in April 2005. I think my noble friend Lady Hollis was the Minister who oversaw its introduction. The reasoning then was the same as the case she has made today. Even if pensioners go into retirement with a just adequate income, they may well not have enough savings to deal with the rainy day problems we all face. Never mind the challenge of the eventual cost of their own burial, what happens if the boiler fails in a bitterly cold winter? Or the car that they require in a rural environment breaks down and they are otherwise trapped in their home? We can all think of circumstances in which a bit of capital would be of help.

We know who chooses to defer their pensions. Drawing on the DWP’s own statistics, in March 2013, 1.2 million pensioners, or 9%, were receiving an income arising from a deferred pension, of whom 75% were women and 77% were living in the UK. We know that few of those who choose to defer take the lump-sum option; 63,000 payments were made in 2011-12, and the DWP forecasts that that will fall to 35,000 by 2017-18. In 2011-12, the average lump sum was £11,500, with the UK average being £13,700 and the overseas average £4,100. These are not significant sums, and the calculation could be done as to what this is likely to cost based on these statistics.

However, there are things that we do not know. First, we do not know why people choose to defer. Of those deferring, 75% are women, but the question is whether they are waiting until their partner retires to draw their pensions or there is some other motivation we do not know about. Are those who defer still working, deferring their retirement perhaps because they have saved too little and it is too early for them to retire? What do we know about the wealth of those who defer? Very little. The statistics already deployed show that 25% are overseas residents. Do we know why they make the choices that they do? We do not.

These Benches would like to understand the costs better. The DWP tells us that spending on lump sums currently costs about £800 million per annum and is due to fall to £700 million in real terms, although I am not sure by when. Obviously, these people have not been drawing their pensions for the period during which they deferred, so I presume that that is not a net cost—but maybe my presumption is wrong and it is. If it is not, what is the cost of the lump sum minus the pension forgone? What is the net cost of these deferrals in real terms? If there is a net cost, what rate would have to be offered to make the lump sum a cost-neutral choice?

Finally, I would like to understand why the Government want to end this. Is it the cost? Is it the administration? Is it the desire for simplicity? Are the Government sure that they know enough about the impact of this policy and the relatively small numbers who choose to defer? If not, has the Minister or his department considered further research on who is deferring? If it turns out primarily to be people with no or too little savings, what other option would he suggest for those who are retired and have no nest egg now, on what are likely to be low incomes with no means or opportunity to build up such a nest egg or capital?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as several noble Lords have said, the Bill does not provide an option for those deferring a single-tier pension to receive a lump-sum payment. Instead, the deferral arrangements will be simplified. Those who defer will receive a weekly increase in their state pension, enabling them to improve their pension income for retirement. Looking at some of the relevant figures, I can confirm the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, of 1.2 million people receiving an increment in March 2013, which was around 9% of the state pension case load. We had 63,000 lump sums taken in the latest year for which we have figures, 2011-12. In response to the query of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, two-thirds of those are women and one-third are men. However, under the new system, we expect that that is likely to change, and I will go into that in a little while. A primary objective for the reforms is to simplify the state pension and to provide a simpler foundation for private saving.

At this point, I was going to give the cost figures, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about. The savings from removing the lump sum in isolation from the change in the increment rate are around 85% of the overall deferral savings for 2030, which are outlined in the impact assessment. That figure will be between £250 million and £300 million in 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I have to accept that the right reverend Prelate is on a very important and interesting point, on which one could write many a financial essay. I will go back and think about whether there is any generalised approach that we as a Government should take on this. I will resist any indulgence in doing so off the top of my head, though, because this is a huge and difficult issue.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased and not surprised that a cup of tea with the Minister can last one a very long time. May I tempt him to look at the challenge that he has been posed from a slightly different perspective? It strikes me that a number of things may be possible. First, I tempt him to express a view on whether he thinks that it would be a good thing to encourage people in their retirement to have some capital, rather than encouraging individual people to defer a pension or whatever. As a point of principle, would it not be better for us if our retired population had access to some capital that would cover these rainy-day situations?

Secondly, is it possible to take advantage of the Bill, in the way in which the Minister has suggested pensioners can do, by deferring taking pensions for a year and then taking that as a lump sum or by some other simple method to create an opportunity for people to take a deferred pension lump sum to provide that capital? I am struck that it should not necessarily be the case that the only way of doing this is to import a very complicated existing procedure as a method of taking a lump sum, and then finding that that confounded the argument for simplicity. Is it not worth spending some time to see whether there is a simpler method of doing this, such as perhaps an extension of what the Minister has tempted us with today as a possibility?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, if it is a nest egg that noble Lords are worrying about, then the arrears approach is not a huge distance away from what they might find quite attractive. The best thing that I can do is try to spell that out in a bit more detail in a rather considered letter to Members of the Committee, to see if it addresses their concerns. The counterpoint is that a lot of people take their nest egg and blow it on a car. Concern about the no-savings culture is the other side of the lump sum coin and those people will face later old age, if they live a long time, poorer than they otherwise would have been because it is a complicated decision. I will think a little bit harder about the arrears issue we have discussed because it might give noble Lords what they are after, possibly without needing to change very much, but I need to spell out how that might work. My team is looking ecstatic at that offer and will fully support any tea-time activities I might indulge in later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as you know, these amendments seek detailed arrangements of passporting to other benefits for single-tier recipients who would, under the current system, have been receiving a basic state pension with a modest private pension income above that level. They would also ensure that mixed-age couples, where one member has reached state pension age before 6 April 2016 and the other after, would retain access to the savings credit. As noble Lords will be aware, the savings credit, which is currently available to those aged 65 and over, will continue to be available to those who reach state pension age before 6 April 2016, and mixed-age couples who are already in receipt on that date will continue to receive it.

The guarantee credit will continue to be available for the poorest, regardless of when they reach state pension age, and receipt of the guarantee credit will, for example, continue to give access to the warm home discount scheme and to cold weather payments. Moreover, poorer pensioners, in the bottom income quintile, are among the principal beneficiaries of these reforms: more than half will be better off in the first 25 years, with a median gain of £8 a week in 2040 and £5 in 2020.

The full rate of the new single-tier pension will be set above the basic means test. Where both members of a couple receive the full single-tier pension, they will receive nearly a third more than the couple rate of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, based on 2013 rates. This means state pension income alone will raise them above the standard income level at which pension credit runs out. Savings credit already rewards some couples for their state pension, which muddies the original intention. Mixed-age couples, where one is on a full basic state pension and the other a full single-tier pension, would also have income above the couple’s standard minimum guarantee.

A key principle of the reforms is to remove access to savings credit for single-tier households, which includes couples where one reaches state pension age before 6 April 2016. We need to balance the fairness between recipients and taxpayers in dealing with the conflict between the individual basis of the single-tier pension and the household basis of the savings credit. However, we will allow those mixed-age couples already in receipt of savings credit on 6 April to retain it, if they continue to meet the eligibility conditions.

Amendment 36A would retain means-testing for the mixed-age couple group and continue to reward some with savings credit for their state pension, but without any increase in savings incentives, which is why we oppose it. The cost of the amendment would be up to £20 million per year into the 2030s.

I shall pick up the issue of why we include the example. The power in the Bill will allow us to specify when the restrictions should and should not apply. The example in new Section 3ZA(2) captures one situation where we may wish to allow existing recipients to retain the entitlement, but we may identify more situations as we work through the detail of single tier. The numbers affected are likely to be small, with a maximum of 20,000 couples at any one time, and a total of 40,000 couples affected at some time over their retirement, which is only 5% of an estimated 800,000 mixed-age couples. Of those potentially affected, only around two-thirds would have claimed, because of the low take-up issue. Changes in circumstances during retirement mean that, on average, a mixed-aged couple would miss out for only seven years of their retirement.

The noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Browne, asked about numbers in receipt of savings credit. There are currently 540,000 receiving only savings credit. The average median loss of savings credit peaks at around £10 per week in 2020, but the net impact on household income is only expected to be £8 per week at that point.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Before the Minister moves too far away from my specific question, which was exploring legislation by example, I should perhaps correct what I said. In explaining this, I remember suggesting that new Section 3ZA(2) was about the circumstances in which somebody would be “entitled” to savings credit. However, the wording is “not entitled to”. I wish to clarify that for the purposes of the record. I am really not clear why the Government choose to legislate by putting into primary legislation an example of the only set of circumstances that they have currently come across in which, specifically, a mixed-age couple would not be entitled to savings credit and then say they expect that there are other sets of circumstances out there but that they have not formulated them yet. Why put in any example at all? What is the purpose of it?

[Lord Freud]

The purpose is that we want to retain the ability to avoid cash losers. That is the purpose of this particular power. In relation to the potential impact of the removal of savings credit on passporting, I remind noble Lords that, while pension credit acts as a passport to a number of other benefits, most are linked to receipt of the guarantee credit rather than the savings credit. Housing benefit and council tax reductions are not limited to pension credit recipients; they can already be claimed on low-income grounds regardless of receipt of pension credit, and this will continue. Furthermore, there is a higher applicable amount for pensioners over 65 in housing benefit, essentially to ensure that the savings credit is not itself means-tested away for those paying rent. This higher applicable amount applies to all pensioners over 65, not just those receiving savings credit. This provision will continue for at least as long as housing benefit remains. As noble Lords may be aware, we recently announced that there are no plans to change housing benefit for pensioners until at least 2017-18.

Unlike housing support, entitlement to social fund payments, including cold weather payments, requires receipt of pension credit, and this can include people getting savings credit only. I assure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we have made no assumption of savings from cold weather payments as a result of the changes in this Bill.

On the question of figures—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. It is being made as a consequence of Part 2 of Schedule 12 which, among other things, amends and consolidates the provisions dealing with category B pensions, which will continue to be available to people reaching state pension age before the magic date of 6 April 2016. These provisions have recently been amended by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 in order to extend category B pensions to same-sex spouses. This Bill already takes account of these recent amendments. They are consolidated in paragraphs 55-61 and 63 of Schedule 12. The amendments in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act will therefore be redundant when Schedule 12 comes into force so this amendment simply removes them from that point. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for confirmation for the record that this is a genuine and consequential amendment and I accept that. I am encouraged to ask a question, which he may not be in a position to answer, and I would be happy if he could write to confirm what I suspect is a simple answer to this. As a consequence of drawing my attention to this area of the law, I am moved to ask whether the Minister can confirm if there is any difference in the transitional arrangements that will apply to members of a civil partnership or same-sex marriage who divorce if one of them has reached state pension age before 6 April 2016? I do not want to detain the Committee in the detail of that. If the answer is no that is the answer I am looking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I am very pleased to give the answer the noble Lord is looking for. No.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the Minister and am pleased to have that on record. I have nothing further to add.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, given our time constraints, I will pick up those issues—the shared cost and the rebate over time. With the negative and affirmative, there is a time saving and a certainty. The difference is that you get them in and, within a matter of a month, they are effectively law and they can then be prayed against, but they are in shape unless they are undone. Affirmative has to be approved. So there is quite a process and a time loss in going one way or the other, which I hope I have spelt out. Let me rush to—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am conscious of the time, but I am also conscious that we should not move on from this particular part of the Bill with all its complexity because we are pushed for time, due to the accident of when we held this debate. I say this for a good reason. The Minister read a speaking note about affirmative resolution procedure in relation to regulations which was not written to respond to the amendment that I proposed but was a much more general speaking note. The amendment tabled by me and my noble friend Lady Sherlock related only to Section 24(8)—a very specific part that would not involve the complex regulations which the Minister narrated. The regulations in Section 24(8) will probably be two short paragraphs.

The Minister has given us a lot of other food for thought about how the regulations will be promulgated more broadly. He tantalisingly gave us some of the detail about what may be in there, which may answer many of our questions. It is inappropriate that we just move on from Committee in relation to all these issues that he has raised in his response, and which none of us has had the opportunity to tease out. There are three or four other issues that he raised in response to my contribution with which I would like to engage, because I am not certain that these arguments would stand the test of debate.

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, I was responding to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on the negative procedure generally. It is fairly odd to have two separate procedures going on within one process. That is the point.

I will try to deal with government Amendments 48 and 49. Schedule 14 currently provides that regulations can create exceptions to the limits set out in paragraph 2(2). This was originally provided to deal with unusually funded schemes, such as fixed cost-share schemes, which I hope goes to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns about the power. In light of this and our ongoing discussions with the pensions industry, we no longer believe that we need this power—we believe that something different is required—so Amendment 49 removes it. Amendment 48 then makes specific provision for employers with atypical scheme-funding arrangements, such as cost-share schemes. It allows those employers to recover their increased costs without affecting the safeguards provided by Schedule 14.

In the statutory override we have designed a process whereby employers can continue to sponsor defined-benefit schemes without losing the rebate. We have included provision to allow for a pivotal role for actuaries in signing off any changes but we have not restricted the ability of trustees, and indeed members, to express their views to the employer. We have ensured that trustees are not forced to decide whether to accept scheme changes or risk closure of the scheme. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I will be in a much better position to explain the difficulties in a little while. So, rather than presuming on this, I would say that we are considering it. It is difficult, and I am sure that we will have the opportunity to return to it on Report.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way at this stage, and I am not ungrateful to him for his undertaking to consider this and report back. That is the most that we could have expected. However, I ask him to consider two things. First, there is certainty that the Ministry of Defence will have records—there is no question about that. Secondly, I direct his attention back to the provision in the guidance note issued on the covenant, in which the Government promised to keep the issue of access to benefits under review. It might be helpful if the Minister explored why that promise was made and what was in mind at that time. Clearly some consideration was given to it, which instructed that promise. Surely it was not just a cosmetic promise, with nobody having any idea what could possibly be offered in the future.

[Lord Freud]

Let me take the two issues there. It is not necessarily the case that the MoD will have records on this, especially of an accompanying partner. That is clearly one of the issues. I think what was envisaged was exactly to look at this kind of thing and other benefits, which is exactly what we are doing. We are, as I say, treating it very seriously, but that is not the same as being able to say that there is a ready solution. We will come back to this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Can the Minister also confirm whether the Bill, if it becomes law as drafted, will have a regressive effect on the position of service spouses or civil partners, as is believed to be the case by at least one of my noble friends and suspected by another, and whether that will in fact be the case when the review is conducted?

[Lord Freud]

I will not answer what could in practice be a huge review of everything to make a hard statement on that, but I will write on that point. Having finished, I hope, all the questions asked, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, under universal credit, there would be a crediting arrangement for everyone within that system anyway, so I accept the point to that extent. I agree with the point on zero hours made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in that robust data are currently simply lacking and we are waiting to see the ONS data when they arrive. As I say, the universal credit system that is coming in adapts very elegantly to that kind of flexible labour market.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Before the Minister moves off the question of the data, the fundamental point about the zero-hours contract estimate that I was attempting to make was that that was despite it being part of the Labour Force Survey. There was an apparently robust basis for a figure that turned out to be, potentially, 300% wrong. We are being asked to debate this against an estimate of a figure that every single part of our experience of life suggests to us is grossly wrong—that is, the figure of 50,000.

[Lord Freud]

The previous estimate for zero-hour contracts—which is what we are talking about—was that there were 250,000. Let us see the figures today for those on part-time work. I cannot remember the figure offhand—is it 1.5 million? There is a boundary, therefore, about what proportion of flexible working is formally on the zero-hour contracts. Rather than speculate on what the real figure is, I think that we should wait until the ONS comes out with a figure, if it is going to revise that.

On the pointed questions about self-employment rates raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, rates of national insurance are clearly a matter for HM Treasury. However, we have not assumed that self-employed contributions will increase single-tier cost estimates.

I know that the noble Baroness has been a champion of this group and has genuine concerns about it losing out. As the new systems come into sharp focus—universal credit, RTI, single tier—there will be a chance to look at this issue properly when we know exactly what is happening, where the remaining issues are and then to find a precise way of dealing with it. It is simply too early, right now, to get a clean and elegant solution, but we do intend to look more broadly at crediting arrangements to examine the possibilities of modernising and simplifying the arrangements in that light. So there is a process. Her point is taken: it is just about what is the most efficient and effective way of solving a particular problem. What I do not know and cannot offer now is a timetable. It is something to be looked at some years—not a lot of years—in the future, in terms of exactly what should happen. I think that there will be a solution in the medium term. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am content to join in commending my noble friend Lord Whitty and other noble Lords for bringing and developing this argument. They will forgive me if I do not join in the nostalgia for 1966. The removal of contracting out from April 2016 has significant implications for all occupational pension schemes. I shall make my speech short, given the time. It is bad enough to be between somebody and their dinner; it is impossible to be between somebody and Christmas.

It is clear just how significant are the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord German. I did not immediately recognise them, but they are in the same ball park as the figure, which I understand to be the Government’s figure, which suggest in excess of £5 billion a year going to the Treasury in extra NI contributions from 2016 when the new state pension scheme begins. Because of the scale of public service pension schemes, the lion’s share of that increase will come from them. It is far from clear, in the complexity of the Bill, how the increased NI contributions in the public sector can be met. Not surprisingly, those who have responsibility for these schemes—bearing in mind that they have just, in many cases, entered into agreements to reform them—are seriously concerned about the impact these changes will have on local authorities, health services, fire and rescue services and policing.

I note that in Committee in the Commons, Oliver Colvile correctly also put the Armed Forces Pension Scheme in the frame in the context of public service pension schemes. If that is correct, if the Minister is minded to accept Amendment 42, the definition of public service pension scheme will include the Armed Forces, which will answer more clearly the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about what is a public service pension scheme. Rightly, Oliver Colvile was concerned that the defence budget should be spent on defending our country and should not be directed back to the Treasury. If it encourages the Minister to engage with this issue in a positive way, I promise not to tell noble and gallant Members of your Lordships’ House that this issue may impinge on that aspect of public policy. If he considers that, I will keep it quiet in the mean time until we see whether we can make some progress on this issue.

The Local Government Association has been in touch with all of us and has advised us that it supports my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendments, which defer the end of contracting out for public service pension schemes until the tax year beginning 2018, and require the Government to credit public service pension schemes with amounts equivalent to the money lost through the end of contracting out.

It is understandable why it supports them, because, in the absence of an alternative from the Government, the choices they face are extremely unpalatable. They include loss of services or increased council tax, for example, or, as we are advised, the certainty that low-paid workers will leave the schemes or that settlements, including the settlement of the public service pension scheme, would have to be renegotiated. I am also told by those who know that it will mean the renegotiation of a lot of contracts in relation to privatised services, because assumptions were made about commitments in relation to pensions in the TUPE environment that no longer stand true.

It is not unreasonable in those circumstances to ask the Government how they will resolve the additional expenses and how they expect those who run public service schemes to deal with the increased cost and, for that matter, how they expect the individuals affected to deal with the increased costs. Will the Minister address the advice that we have been given and the concerns of those who run these schemes? Does he accept that there will be a perverse incentive unless this is resolved and that low-paid workers may decide to opt out of their public sector pension schemes? Does he accept that there is genuine worry that this will undermine agreements to reform that have already been reached? Does he accept that there is genuine concern that this will impact on existing contracts for provision of services by the private sector?

[Lord Freud]

As a consequence of ending the additional pension for those reaching pension age after 2016, we are ending contracting-out. This means that individuals in defined benefit schemes—public sector and private sector—and their employers will no longer be entitled to pay a lower rate of national insurance contributions by contracting out of the state second pension. At the moment, they receive a rebate of 1.4% for employees and 3.4% for employers on earnings up to £40,000.

The abolition of contracting out will result in additional national insurance revenue for the Exchequer. Of this, about £4 billion is national insurance contributions from public sector employers and employees. That is the money that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is most concerned about.

The extra information that I can provide to my noble friend Lord Flight is that the cost of the public sector schemes of paying extra employer national insurance is about £3 billion per annum. We do not have any breakdown of which schemes are at local authority level. I will speak to Her Majesty’s Treasury to find out whether any further information is available.

Noble Lords will know that the Government have not set a fixed spending envelope, nor one for individual departmental budgets, beyond 2015-16, and contracting out is abolished in 2016-17, so is outside the current settlement. Public sector employers will have to absorb the burden, as is always the case with tax changes. Any spending review in the next Parliament will, of course, consider the £4 billion cost in the round. This does not affect our commitments on protecting spending on health and education in this Parliament. Treasury officials have already met with Local Government Association officials concerning the impact on the local government pension scheme. This follows conversations between the Chief Secretary and the Local Government Association, and I would expect similar discussions to take place concerning other schemes when settlements are set.

Turning to the noble Lord’s amendments, I note that he moved back from 1966 to 1963, but then he would, would he not? The amendments would effectively defer the loss of the rebate to public service pension schemes for two years—until April 2018—but in doing so would defer the introduction of the single tier to more than 4 million people.

Amendments 19, 20 and 21 would change Clause 4 by redefining pre and post-commencement qualifying years, so that public service pension scheme members have them counted up to and from 2018 rather than 2016. Amendment 24 would change Schedule 1—the detail of the transition—to bring into account the old scheme and introduce the new scheme two years later for public sector workers, with a tidying-up clause in Amendment 43.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Monday 16th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I thought that I said the 2008 Act.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the Minister. On this side, we heard 2000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

No, let me provide clarity. The system does not let people buy back years before the 2006-07 point. We have relaxed the time limits because of the uncertainty around the new system. However, it is an insurance system, with the basic principle that you cannot insure after the event.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I may need to go and do some research, but my understanding of the 2008 Act was that there were circumstances in which you could buy back beyond the six years for a further six years, under very limited circumstances. It was open to married women in particular, I think, though I am not entirely sure and I will need to go back and check all this. However, maybe the Minister may just conclude this debate on the point at which the six-year limit is fine.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thought that I had just said that we had made that concession a general one in practice.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, in speaking to these amendments I hope noble Lords will not mind if I open with a few thanks. First, I thank noble Lords for their consistent and invaluable dedication to this important Bill. The Bill looks quite different now to how it did at Second Reading and it is certainly in better shape for its passage through this House. I never cease to be amazed by the attention to detail and rigour that noble Lords apply when examining a Bill and I admit that I have ruthlessly stolen as many noble Lords’ ideas as I could over the past few weeks.

The Bill as it stands is a collaborative piece. I have listened with great interest to the concerns of noble Lords and responded to the pressure points. Since the Bill was introduced we have been able to renegotiate the rate of payment to 75%, which is in no small part thanks to the pressure exerted by this House. We have pledged to explore the creation of an oversight committee to ensure that the scheme may operate in the most efficient and just way, an idea that I cannot claim credit for. For that, and indeed much more, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been kind enough to give their time frequently and I am grateful for their supportive approach and their expertise.

Returning to the issue of scheme management, we have announced that the scheme administrator is to be selected through an open-tender route. I am confident that the scheme that will be set up as a result of this Bill will be the best it can be and will offer financial support to those who, through no fault of their own, have contracted this terrible disease yet cannot sue for damages. This represents a substantial achievement and, once again, one for which I cannot claim all the credit; so I thank noble Lords. My particular thanks go to those who have given so much of their time to contribute to the comprehensive debates we have had. The continued support and attention of the noble Lords, Lord Howarth, Lord Wigley and Lord Avebury, have been key.

One issue that we have discussed at length, and I know that many noble Lords feel strongly about it, was research into mesothelioma. As noble Lords will remember, I mentioned that when negotiating the terms of this Bill, I really hit a brick wall at every turn regarding research. A great debt of thanks must therefore go to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the awareness of the lack of research in this area and, although we disagreed on the mechanism, the pressure of his amendment has helped me, jointly with my noble friend Lord Howe, to form a strategy for how we might encourage proposals for high-quality research into mesothelioma. On Report last week, my noble friend Lord Howe outlined this strategy, and I thank the noble Earl once again for his support and collaboration on that point. The momentum in this area created by his efforts and the efforts of this House should not be underestimated.

I have tabled one amendment for today and I apologise to the House for its tardiness. The amendment is minor and technical in nature and we will come to it in a moment, but I will quickly say that further thanks are due, this time to the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The purpose of the amendment is simply to add further clarification to Clause 2. It was the noble Lord’s careful scrutiny of that clause that alerted us to a possible source of confusion. The amendment was deemed necessary in cases where an individual had tried but failed to bring a claim against a relevant employer but, where any other relevant employer existed, the individual must attempt to bring a claim against that employer also before being able to come to the scheme. It has always been the policy intention that this scheme must be one of last resort and that all other avenues should be exhausted first. The object of the amendment is only to avoid any misinterpretation of Clause 2.

Before I conclude, I will briefly mention the sterling work of the team behind the scenes. There have been many working in DWP, MoJ, the Department of Health and parliamentary counsel to whom I extend my thanks, including, in the Box, Rose Willis and Fiona Walshe of the Bill team. I pay especial thanks to the tireless work of our redoubtable Bill manager, Lee Eplett, with whom I know many noble Lords have worked during the passage of this Bill.

I know that noble Lords have wished for the Bill to go even further than it does but I hope that they can agree with me that it is a major step forward. The issue of poor record-keeping in the industry has for far too long prevented mesothelioma sufferers from receiving the compensatory payments due to them. The Bill represents substantial progress in rectifying this injustice, and I once again thank noble Lords for their role in this achievement. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments to the extent that they improve the Bill. I am pleased to have been of some assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in improving the Bill. I venture to suggest that at one stage he thought that I was perhaps more of an irritation than an assistance on Clause 2. However, important issues still need to be addressed and, if your Lordships’ House will bear with me for a couple of minutes, I shall explain.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton first raised concerns about Clause 2 when he moved Amendment 12 in Committee on 5 June. My noble friend’s contribution spurred my interest, and I recollect making some points of observation in debate. In his response the noble Lord, Lord Freud, initially dismissed these points, but as the debate became more engaged he promised to write. That was because he found himself—I think I quote him properly—“in deep legal territory”, or he was concerned that he might find himself in deep legal territory. He promised to write, and on 7 June he did so. He dismissed my concerns again, but I persisted. Thanks to the engagement of the Bill team, in particular the Bill manager, I was able to find a route of communication with parliamentary counsel about my concerns in relation to Clause 2.

I will not take up the House’s time by going into these in detail, but I remain unconvinced that even an amended paragraph (c) of Clause 2(1) is necessary, except in the most remote, hypothetical circumstances. I commend the ingenuity of those supporting the Minister in trying to find sets of circumstances which justify the words in the first draft of the Bill. In my view, the justifications which I was given were either wrong or showed a repeated misunderstanding of the interaction of other parts of Clause 2 with that very paragraph or, as we got deeper into the weeds in this, a misunderstanding of the relationship between Clause 10 and Clause 2, and then a misunderstanding of the relationship between Clause 2 and its provisions, and the draft set of rules which we were then given. I presume they will now form the template for the regulations which will set out the scheme.

At every point at which a justification was made for the wording there was an inconsistency, which I pointed out. However, having said that, the clarification which the Minister gave in his letter of 7 June that the phrase “the relevant employer” in Clause 2(1)(c) was a reference to the same “a relevant employer” in paragraph (a) of the same subsection, perhaps deals with the issue, at least to some extent. If the Minister finds some way of putting that explanation on the record, it may be sufficient to see off my concerns in the short term. In any event, at this stage I do not intend to persist, now that the paragraph has been divided and recast.

Amendment 1, which would put new paragraph (ca) in Clause 2(1), and Amendment 3, which would put new paragraph (ba) in Clause 3(1), are improvements. I support them without any qualification because they deal directly with my concerns about cases where an employee had multiple employers. It is a simple necessity that at the time of application the employee-applicant, or an eligible dependant, must be unable to bring an action against any of the employers or relevant insurers.

I move now to the consequences of Amendment 5. Amendment 5 is extremely interesting. It would amend Clause 18(3) so that it reads as follows:

“The scheme may specify circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be treated as able to bring an action for the purposes of section 2(1)(ca) or 3(1)(ba)”.

This is potentially a very significant provision. Remarkably, despite all of the scrutiny it has remained totally unscrutinised. It has now been brought to my attention because of this amendment. I presume that these circumstances will now require to be set out in the regulations which will apply to the scheme—in other words, what were the draft rules that we were given copies of. I went through the draft rules in detail after I received this amendment and could find no references at all to any such circumstances. It seems therefore that a very important part of the structure of this scheme has not been subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that this will be corrected when the Bill goes to the other place. If this provision is necessary, the circumstances that are to be in the scheme ought to be shown to Parliament before parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill is concluded, which it has not been.

Finally, the most important point that has arisen from my engagement beyond Parliament with the Bill team is that during my conversations and in correspondence with those advising the Minister it was explained to me that it was the Government’s intention that, when a person was diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 25 July 2012 but before the Bill comes into force as an Act, application to the scheme would have to be made and received by the scheme administrator not later than three years after the date on which it comes into force, not three years from 25 July 2012. That would be a very welcome relaxation of the limitation rules, given the nature of this dreadful disease and how quickly it can become fatal.

Unfortunately, the draft rules make no mention of that relaxation and there is no such relaxation anywhere in the Bill. However, there is a very specific relaxation in draft rule 7, where a person has died on or after 25 July 2012 and the claim is made by an eligible dependant. That very significant concession is known to me and is now known to all Members of your Lordships’ House. It requires some parliamentary acknowledgement or commitment, at the very least. More than that, it requires some commitment that the regulations will deal with this in an explicit way.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

If your Lordships’ House will permit me to intervene, I do not intend to engage in debate with the Minister at this stage on any aspects of his commendable “pre-statement”, for which I thank him. It is consistent with the attitude that he has shown to this legislation and his handling of it in the course of our consideration. However, there is another matter which, as he knows, I have been discussing with the Bill team, which is not reflected in the proposed amendments on Report and which, therefore, will not be directly raised.

My concern is about the clarity of the drafting of Clause 2 and the interaction of parts of it. Without going into the detail of that, I have been in discussion and correspondence with the Bill team, and I am grateful to the Minister for allowing that to happen. We did not bottom-out our discussions about the fundamental issue but we revealed a number of things about the interaction between the draft rules and Clause 2. Before I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I got an e-mail saying that there was a recognised tension in relation to the issue of limitation between the draft rules and the current drafting of Clause 2. If the Minister is not in a position to say anything about this now, perhaps he will make time to say something on Report so that it will be on the record and will go to the other place to be considered.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord does not want me to go into detail, but I can commit to going on working with him on this issue, which is very technical. If we work out that something needs to be adjusted, we will have time to do it in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My more fundamental point is that the insurers that sold employer’s liability compulsory insurance were the same insurers that sold public liability insurance to individual employers, because they were sold in a package. That was my experience when I was the Minister for employment between 2003 and 2004 when, the noble Lord will remember, there was a significant failure of the employer’s liability compulsory insurance market that had to be resolved. His letter of 5 July to me and others confirms that that is still the case, according to his research. These insurers are not separate insurers, they are the same insurers, and I suggest that the requirement to carry cover in relation to the specific risk of asbestos would have been irrelevant to public liability.

[Lord Freud]

I have just made the point that the public liability may have been bundled up with employee liability but it did not necessarily cover asbestos risk. That is the issue. If we start going into this, we are just blasting open and widening the position in a way that is very complicated and difficult to deal with under the timelines we are dealing with.

Moving to the second group about the self-employed, here the matter is not so clear-cut. Some people may appear to have been self-employed but if they are able to demonstrate when making their application that in fact they were employees, they may be eligible for a payment under the scheme. There is considerable case law amassed on this and we will ensure—I can commit to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—that the scheme will reflect this when assessing applications.

I know it is not fashionable but I should point out that there is a technical problem with the amendment, which is cumulative, but I will not go through it. As drafted, this amendment does not work because you have to be an employee and self-employed. In our spirit of co-operation, if we wanted to take it we would adjust it, but there are good reasons in both cases why we do not want to.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Monday 10th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I am not sure whether they are claims or successful claims. My understanding is that there have been no cases where there has been compensation. My interest today is obviously not to re-run the debate that we have already had. We will have another chance to do this. I just wanted to get this on the record for the convenience of Members of the Committee at subsequent stages.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

The noble Lord is generous with his time. I listened carefully to his words. If they were a direct quotation from what the Association of British Insurers told his officials, and therefore him, it said that it had no record of any claim of that secondary nature having been settled through the employer’s liability insurance, not no record of any claim having been settled. I ask the Minister to go back to the question: since the association clearly has comprehensive data, has it any record of claims having been settled? If so, through what form of insurance were they settled and—this is the important question—were the insurers and those who carried the risk the same companies that carried the risk for compulsory employer’s liability insurance in respect of the circumstances of the cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I take on board my noble friend’s point. As I said, I shall look at this and the other points made by this Committee. The rules are only in draft form, and we may look at them to lock that down.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am sure that the Minister will do this, but perhaps I may check that he will consider whether it would be better to reflect that restriction in primary legislation rather than allowing it to appear for the first time in the rules.

[Lord Freud]

I will look at that, but I remind noble Lords that primary legislation sets a framework, and what matters here is how the rules work. In this case, the rules that we have agreed will go before Parliament in the form of regulations, so there will be a chance for oversight of that issue. Therefore, it does not matter too much where we make sure that the matter is under control.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Freud

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment, although I think that there is a more elegant way of dealing with the issue. Frankly, and I hope that the Committee—particularly the Minister—will agree, I do not understand why Clause 2(1)(c) is there at all. It does not seem to make any sense.

The clause has two parts to it. The second part is that the person who is diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma will be eligible for the payment only if he or she is unable to bring an action against an employer or insurer because the relevant employer or insurer cannot be found or no longer exists. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which anyone could have brought an action against some person who cannot be found or did not exist. I do not understand why that conditionality is there at all. I can envisage the sort of circumstances that my noble friend suggests, which are that an action was brought wrongfully against the wrong employer or the wrong insurer, but why should that disqualify someone from making a claim and receiving a payment from the scheme because they made a mistake in the past and thought that they had the right employer or insurer?

I urge the Minister to take that away and perhaps rephrase the clause to provide that a person who has been unable to bring an action against the relevant employer or any relevant insurer for damages in respect of the disease because the employer and insurer cannot be found or no longer exist, or for any other reason. That seems to be the answer. I do not understand why that part of the clause is there at all.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is that a person may be eligible for a payment from the scheme if they have not brought a successful action against their relevant employer or insurer for damages. However, there is another condition attached: they must also not be able to bring an action for some reason, perhaps because the employer or insurer cannot be found or no longer exists.

A person should be eligible for a payment from the scheme if they have not brought an action against a relevant employer or insurer through the courts and there are very good reasons why they are unable to do so. It is a scheme of last resort. If a person can bring proceedings, they should do so. But a person should not be eligible for a payment from the scheme if they have brought an action against a relevant employer or insurer through the courts and they have not been successful in that action because they have not been awarded civil damages. This may happen for a number of reasons. For example, the courts may consider that the employer did not expose the person to asbestos as a result of negligence or breach of statutory duty, or that the person was not an employee. It is not right in these circumstances that the person should be able to make an application to the scheme. It is a scheme of last resort, not a no-fault scheme. The scheme is correcting a market failure where employer’s liability insurers failed to keep thorough records; it is not replacing the civil system.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene on the Minister when he is reading a very carefully constructed argument but, with all due respect, what he has just read defies logic. Bearing in mind that the person must have been diagnosed with mesothelioma after July 2012 and, if the draft rules become the rules of the scheme, must have brought any claim within three years of that diagnosis. It is envisaged that in that period the person would have sued somebody despite the fact that they were unable to find the relevant employer or the relevant insurer. It cannot possibly have been the relevant employer or the relevant insurer that they sued so the determination of the case is an irrelevance. I do not understand how people can sue somebody they cannot find.

Lord Freud: My Lords, what the legislation aims to do, and does, is to say, “Go to your relevant employer or insurer, if you can find them, take them to court and go through the legal process. If that process finds that they were not liable, you cannot go to the scheme”. If that was a mistake, you could find another employer. To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, there is nothing to stop you finding the next employer, but if it was found in that case that the employer was not liable, clearly the scheme would not be liable either”.

I am not sure that I understand the concern. This may be because of the way in which one reads the legal language. I think the best thing I can do is write a letter spelling out exactly how the language works.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

The reason we are able to deal with these cases in this way is because of the history of the way in which mesothelioma litigation has developed. In mesothelioma cases, one can sue any employer. So if one finds a relevant employer or insurer, one can sue that person—I think that is agreed. That is part of the reason why this group of people are able to have access to this payment scheme whereas people suffering from other asbestos-related diseases cannot so easily do so. We agree on that.

Any person who has found a relevant employer or insurer to sue is disqualified from the payment scheme—full stop. It is not a question of finding one and then saying, “I cannot find the other, therefore I want to claim through the scheme”, anybody who finds one and has somebody to sue is disqualified by the second half of the clause. The first half of the clause is unnecessary.

[Lord Freud]

As I said, let me write to noble Lords about the necessity or otherwise of the first half of the clause, because I suspect that we are in deep legal territory.