Welfare: Cost of Family Breakdown
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I am unable to give an official figure. A number of organisations have produced estimates—for example, the Relationships Foundation, at £45 billion-odd—but there is no consensus. The social security spend on lone parents and collecting child maintenance is just under £9 billion, but we must acknowledge that there are wider societal costs. Government have an important role to play in supporting families and working to ensure stable futures for children.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, if the figure of £45 billion or £46 billion given by the Relationships Foundation is even remotely accurate, that illustrates the cost of family and relational breakdown, which cashes out at about £1,500 each year for each taxpayer in our country. What more do the Government propose to do to support and strengthen family life and relationships in our country, which must somewhere include supporting the institution of marriage?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the Government place the importance of sustaining relationships and families high up on their agenda and have a number of programmes to encourage that, which include extending childcare, tax-free childcare, and flexible working for both parents. We have worked on support for relationships and for parenting and have introduced a marriage tax break. We are looking at this whole area in our family stability review, which will be published later this year.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to turn the Question around and ask the Minister of his estimate of the cost to family relationships of cuts to social security, which are forcing some families to move, breaking up their family and social relationships, and of the cost to them of ever increasing punitive sanctions, which are driving more and more families to food banks. Both these trends are leaving families under more and more stress, leading, potentially, to the break-up of relationships.
Lord Freud
My Lords, on the issue of food banks raised by the noble Baroness, which we have discussed several times in this House, clearly nobody goes to a food bank willingly. However, it is very hard to know why people go to them. The Defra report said that there was a lack of systematic peer-reviewed research from the UK on the reasons or immediate circumstances that lead people to turn to food aid.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Is the Minister aware that cohabiting relationships form a disproportionate amount of the relationships that break down and that cohabiting parents are three times as likely to split by the time their child is aged five as are married couples? Will the Government therefore refrain from further normalising or approving cohabiting relationships as a form of parenthood?
Lord Freud
There was a very substantial long-term jump in the number of cohabiting relationships. It went up over the last Government from more than 600,000 to 1.1 million. It is somewhat flattening now; it currently stands at 1.2 million. The noble Baroness is right in that the actual figure is that those couples are four times more likely to split when their child is under three than if they are married. However, there are some structural and major societal changes behind those trends, and it will take an enormous amount of effort to start putting marriage back into its rightful place. That is exactly one of the things that we are looking to do with the family stability review.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister have a breakdown of the amount of funding that the Government give to those charities that help families in difficulty to prevent the partnership breaking down? Can he say whether there is a role for the Family Nurse Partnership in helping families stay together?
Lord Freud
We are running two immediate programmes. The first is to provide help and support for separated families, running in SR10 at £14 million, £10 million of which is spent on an innovation fund that tests various interventions, involving 17 different voluntary and private groups. The other aspect is the relationship support interventions, on which we are spending £30 million. There are three main areas—something called Let’s Stick Together, marriage preparation and couples counselling.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I would like to return to the answer that the Minister gave my noble friend Lady Lister. If the Minister does not know why people go to food banks, I commend to him the “Panorama” programme shown on television last night about food banks. Among other people, they interviewed a mother who described the fact that her benefits had been wrongly sanctioned for three months and that they had so little to eat that her milk dried up while breastfeeding.
I have two questions for the Minister. First what is the current success rate of appeals against sanctions on benefits? Secondly, what does he make of the pictures shown in the “Panorama” programme last night of the jobcentre that put up charts to show its staff how much money could be saved to the department by sanctioning people for a range of times?
Lord Freud
I must emphasise to noble Lords that we absolutely do not have targets for sanctioning. We have looked into this matter, and we do not have them—we do not run them. When there are exceptions, we stop it. That is not the purpose of sanctions; the purpose of sanctions is to run a system in which we provide some £85 billion to people who need it. It is our safety net to make sure that we give that properly and that people comply with the conditions required to receive that money.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to inform the House why, in his opinion, the Government of whom I was a member were responsible in some way for the increase in cohabitation? Would he be prepared to point out that many cohabiting couples make very good parents to their children?
Lord Freud
There seems to be a difference between the two sides of the House on the importance of marriage. This side believes that marriage is a valuable institution and we are going to support it with a marriage tax break.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the Government are increasing the work they are doing with the country’s most troubled families, getting some of those families into work for the first time in generations. What does my noble friend the Minister expect that to do for family stability?
Lord Freud
My Lords, it is vital that people get into work where they can. That is the only way to solve poverty in the long term. We have managed to get more families into work—under this Government, 300,000 more have gone into work. I should also point out that fewer families with children are in poverty under this Government. That figure has gone down by 100,000 since we came in.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, in answering my noble friend Lady Sherlock, the noble Lord was unequivocal that the Government do not have targets on sanctions. Will he, therefore, instruct government offices which have charts on their walls, such as my noble friend Lady Sherlock described in asking her question, to take them down?
Lord Freud
If it is established that there are charts of that nature, I will instruct them to be taken down.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to answer the other question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the rate of successful appeals against sanctions?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord; I do not have that figure at my fingertips.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, what contribution do the Government make to the work of Relate and similar organisations?
Lord Freud
We support a number of charities supporting marriage. I do not think that I have to hand the exact level of that support in monetary terms. However, the figure is available and I shall write to the noble Lord to provide it.
Pensions Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I feel rather privileged to have been here this afternoon to hear a pantheon of some of the leading pension thinkers in the country concentrate on an issue. As a result it has been a very interesting debate. Clearly we all agree that this is a very important topic. We need to find a solution to the issue of small pots and I will make a case for why the Government believe that automatic transfer is the right solution and why we do not need any alternative provision.
We are clear that the pot-follows-member model, with small pension pots automatically moving and being combined with the individual’s current live workplace pension, will lead to increased consolidation of pension pots, better outcomes in retirement and better member engagement, as well as administrative savings for the industry. The pot-follows-member model builds on the essential foundation of automatic enrolment —the employer/employee relationship that is proving so successful in driving retirement saving, including among those who have never had a pension before. Employees identify with this relationship and with the idea of pots following them to their new employer.
My noble friend Lord German mentioned the research carried out by NOW: Pensions. It showed that 39% of individuals would like their pot to follow them automatically compared with 6% who wanted their pot sent to an aggregator scheme. For the purposes of that research, NOW: Pensions defined the aggregator model as a pot that is automatically moved to a central scheme that meets certain standards. This definition, although high level, is helpful because otherwise we have no clear sense of what an aggregator actually is. Indeed, these amendments do not help define what an aggregator is or how it would work. In fact, these amendments—which have been revised since we discussed them in Grand Committee—appear to be even less workable than before. For instance, they appear to give the decision about where to move the pot to the ceding scheme. By definition, the ceding scheme is the scheme with the least interest in the individual and their outcome in retirement because it is losing the pot.
This seems entirely counterintuitive when compared with the successful current account switching service—CASS—that helps customers move banks. This service puts the onus on the new bank to ensure that the switch happens, because it was recognised that the bank gaining the account will have more interest in making the move as smooth as possible than the old one. It is perhaps not unreasonable that when people move employers and join a new pension scheme they will expect the new scheme to do the work of transferring the pot for them, as happens when they switch their current account, but this would not be true under a push transfer model which these amendments would introduce.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Flight, who points out a real problem with the proposed aggregator model. It really is not clear who chooses where the pension is aggregated. There are other fundamental flaws, such as the lack of any provisions to ensure that the same scheme is used each time—someone could end up with pots in multiple aggregators, undermining the core aim of consolidation. Moreover, there is no definition of what an aggregator is, who could set one up and what the criteria for doing so would be. This lack of clarity will not help the industry in driving forward the development of the implementation model. Noble Lords may say that this detail can be worked out at a later date, but it is exactly this detail that needs to be resolved before any measure can be put on the statute book.
I have real concerns that the House is being asked to accept a theoretical concept, with all the details to be entirely devolved to secondary legislation, but I also have issues with the concept itself. The Government welcome the recent Office of Fair Trading report and accept its conclusions. The OFT was damning of the pensions market, saying that,
“the combination of a complex product and weaknesses in the buyer side of the market means that competition cannot be relied upon to drive value for money for all scheme members”.
We have heard the argument that the introduction of automatic transfers into aggregators will shake up the market and essentially skew it in favour of consumers by ensuring that all can save into large schemes that provide excellent value for money. However, I believe that the aggregator model would skew the market in favour of large providers and would reinforce the dominance of a few big players.
I believe the assumption is that aggregators would in some way be licensed and that schemes would have to meet certain standards to be able to act as aggregators. This would favour current large schemes that have the business model to enable them to accept large numbers of pots from individuals with employers they have previously had no contact with. Alternatively, if the large players in this market do not take the challenge, the Government would have to subsidise an aggregator scheme, which would raise state aid issues in Europe.
Aggregator schemes would enjoy a huge advantage over the rest of the market. They would be the default destination for almost all pots and, as the consumer would not be making an active choice, there would be no incentive to innovate. We have estimated that there will be three-quarters of a trillion pounds in lost pots by 2050, which is a lot of money—
Lord Hutton of Furness
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he tell us what assumptions underpin the figure that he has just given to the House?
Lord Freud
Those figures are pretty detailed and I will write to the noble Lord with them if I do not get a detailed breakdown in the next minute or two—which I might. It is a huge amount of money, which the noble Lord will appreciate as well as anyone else, and it is a lot of money to have in a complacent and stagnant market. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, suggested, employers could choose the aggregators, and these aggregators were to become open to active members, this market dominance would be complete.
Baroness Drake
I do not think I said that the employer could choose the aggregator. I said that if the aggregator was able to have active members as well as aggregated members, that would enhance portability, particularly in some industries, which would reduce the need for transfers and the consequential costs. I do not think I actually said that the operating model would mean the employer chose the aggregator—I left that to the departmental assessment.
Lord Freud
Well, if they started moving to active members as well, whatever the route, it would give this group of organisations an enormous market position. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, that I will have to write to him.
It seems strange that, in response to the OFT’s conclusion that there is a lack of competition in the pensions market, the Opposition are calling for the creation of a market dominated by a few big master trusts. We need only to look at other industries, such as the energy market or banking sector, to see that dominance by a few powerful players can result in real concerns for consumers. If we were to press on regardless with enabling these large aggregators to come into being, we would need to be clear that there would be no turning back. It would be extremely difficult to reverse the process if we found that an aggregator model was not sustainable, and to tackle the vested interests if consumers were getting a poor deal.
We have heard—for example, from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—that the Government are alone in supporting pot follows member. It is not true that few people support it but I agree that there is a powerful lobby supporting the aggregator model. It is hardly surprising that those who are shouting the loudest are those who are lobbying on behalf of master trusts that could come to dominate the market under an aggregator model.
The ABI itself supports pot follows member, as do many groups within it—Aviva, Fidelity, Friends Life, HSBC, Origo, Scottish Life and Scottish Widows—as well as non-members of the ABI such as Alexander Forbes, Altus, Buck, Foster Denovo, the Investment Management Association, JLT and the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners.
This Government’s starting point is the consumer—and it is the individual who wants to see their pension follow them to their new employer, as the research from NOW: Pensions, which we have already touched on, underlines. The ABI’s consumer research showed that 58% of individuals said that the pot should follow them automatically to the new job; 10% were in favour of a new central scheme, the aggregator; 15% said the pot should stay where it is and it is up to you to move it; and 17% said it should be visible with all other pension pots at a central place online. That is the sentiment among consumers.
I appreciate that some consumer groups have concerns. I say to them that we are listening to those concerns and that low charges and scheme quality are top of our agenda, not just for automatic transfers but for all schemes. We want these groups to work with us and the industry now to deliver pot follows member in the simplest, safest way for consumers.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, raised concerns about consumer detriment. I remind the House about the work the Government are doing to ensure that all schemes are good schemes. Uniformity is not good for consumers, but only if all aggregators had identical charges and standards would we completely remove the risk of an individual moving to a worse scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Turner, made the point about the interconnectedness of these issues. The Minister for Pensions has confirmed that he remains “strongly minded”—I think that is fairly parliamentary language —to introduce a charge cap. My noble friend asked about the DWP response to the OFT and the consultation on charges. That response is coming soon and we will be discussing that later this afternoon.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us what the department has in mind as an appropriate charge cap?
Lord Freud
Various figures have been talked about, but I do not think I can pre-empt the answer to that question, which will be issued very soon.
In contrast to legislating radically to change the market, we see pot follows member as a way of building on the existing automatic enrolment structure quickly to reach a point where transferring pots is an integral part of the industry. Pot follows member does not prevent industry from innovating in future. Indeed, as individuals become more engaged in pension saving, they may want to be more involved in deciding where their pension pot is and in choosing a preferred scheme.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, there is even scope to introduce an aggregator in future if there is demand for it, so we are not closing any doors by pursuing this route now.
Lord Flight
I think that the Minister just said it, but can he confirm what I view as a crucial point, which is that the individual is still free to choose where he might wish to place his consolidated pension savings and that we are talking only about the default option? Therefore, as people become more informed, some may choose not to consolidate in their employer’s scheme.
Lord Freud
I can confirm my noble friend’s question—or I can give the answer to confirm it.
At this point in time, when we are just starting out with automatic enrolment and successfully getting people saving for the first time, we need to make it as easy as possible for them to build their pension. We need to use inertia in the right way. That means moving a small pension pot to the current live pot where the individual can see it growing, rather than sending it off to a scheme with which the individual has no engagement and in which they have no interest.
Now is not the time to break the link between the individual and his or her employer. Automatic enrolment is going well, with 3 million individuals newly saving and less than 10% opting out. It is reinforcing the workplace pension as a key element of the benefit package that employers offer their staff after decades of decline in occupational pensions.
I have heard the argument that these amendments are designed to give the Government another option, which appears on the surface to be a generous approach. Providing the Government with greater flexibility is one thing, but listening to the debate today, I suspect that few on the Opposition Benches want the Government to have the flexibility to chose anything but the aggregator model.
In practice, the amendments will leave us in limbo and bring back uncertainty at a time when industry is beginning to get behind, and position itself to deliver, pot follows member. As my honourable friend in the other place announced on Monday, officials are currently exploring the feasibility of using HMRC’s PAYE data and system to help us to deliver a secure, efficient and straightforward pot-matching element to implement the process.
In response to the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that pot follows member would be hard to set up, we have recently had some very positive workshops with industry representatives and HMRC. The model is already inspiring some exciting and innovative approaches to transferring money with an employee as they move jobs. The cost of the transfer was specifically mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It will be the same for an aggregator as for pot follows member. Altus has challenged the claim that pension transfers are too hard and too expensive by stating that transfers for ISAs and funds cost £1 or less, and that this can be replicated for pension transfers.
After two years of discussion and debate on this issue, even if we cannot agree with the Opposition on the right delivery model, I hope that we can agree that we need to take a positive step forward. On the “pause to reflect” point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, I do not believe that we are rushing into this measure. We first consulted more than two years ago and followed up with two policy papers. We also held extensive discussions with industry and consumer groups within that period. I urge the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment to allow us to work together, and work with industry, to make automatic transfers a reality.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been another classic House of Lords debate. I particularly thank my co-signatories to this amendment, my noble friends Lord Hutton and Lady Drake. The Minister referred at the outset to a pantheon of pensions expertise, and indeed it has been. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, joked in Grand Committee that the Pensions Commission was almost quorate since two of its three members were gathered there. I say to the Minister, as I said then to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, that if I were sitting where he was and this pantheon was sitting opposite me and telling me that I was wrong, I would be pausing, just as my noble friend Lord Hutton suggested.
A number of arguments have been made today. The Minister says that the Government have been discussing this for two years but this House has not. When we discussed it in Grand Committee, I do not recall hearing a single supportive speech for pot follows member. I am glad that the researchers of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, moved him from his position then to the position that he articulated so clearly today, but I do not think that anyone in this House has heard those arguments made until today. I am glad that we have heard them, and very glad that the Minister has been doing work with the industry to get it ready to deliver what will be this Act. However, it is still a Bill; it is not an Act and this House has every right to make its own decisions. Whatever decisions Parliament makes, I have no doubt that at that point the Minister and his colleagues will go out there to deliver.
What arguments have we heard today against our enabling amendment? First, we have heard that it is not clear what the choice is. Well, that is the point: the amendment says to the Government, “Go back and think again. We will work with you if necessary, but think again”. It is said that there will be a delay. Yes, there will be a delay, but the wrong thing would be to rush ahead and make a decision because you want it now, if the consequences would be very serious because it is the wrong decision. This is too serious to rush into. A lot of criticisms have been made so far. For example, the Minister says that the way in which this amendment is constructed would leave the choice of the aggregator with the outgoing employer. If the Minister looks again at Amendment 23J, he will find in fact that it says that regulations may do one of two things. There is a big “or” between the two; it is either push or pull. Everything about these amendments is constructed to say that we recognise there are choices to be made but think that the Government have not given enough thought to what should be the right way forward for consumers.
We have heard nothing to counter the arguments made across the Benches here. What about all those who leave employment? What about the self-employed, who make up the fastest-growing sector: where do their pension pots go? What happens to the pension pot of the seasonal cricketer mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull? I am sorry, but I live in Durham and our cricketers are mostly in the England teams, so I cannot advise him there. However, I can tell him that that person would really struggle under pot follows member. What about all those people in mini-jobs who will find themselves in a position of not having a single employer? Much has been said about the relationship between employer and employee, but the truth is that every model of pension scheme struggles with employee engagement. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, pointed out, the whole point of this is that it addresses only the position of those who make no active choice themselves, yet those are the people to whom the state owes the greatest responsibility. These are the people whose funds we are moving, without their explicit consent, from one employer to another.
Much has been made of the fact that we want all the schemes to be of the best quality, but let’s get real—the OFT has already said that the market is not working. The noble Lord, Lord Turner, has described the challenges they found: people are learning when they come to retire that between 25% and 40% of their pension pot has gone in charges. If the Government really are committed to tackling charges I would invite the Minister to intervene again and to give a proper answer to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord German, about when the Government will cap pension charges. If he will not tell us now, I have a very simple solution for him—he can vote for our amendment in the next group and cap the charges tomorrow.
Lord Freud
I really do need to take up the invitation. I think that we have made it clear that we will deal with this within this Parliament, which I think means by a date some time in May. I think that that is fairly clear.
Baroness Sherlock
It is interesting, my Lords. What has happened—without wishing to pre-empt the next debate—is that the Opposition pushed the Government to do this but the Government said that it was not necessary. The Minister then went out to consultation and suddenly seemed to get cold feet, and he put it on hold for a year. There is a very small window but I am delighted to hear it. But the Minister can vote for our amendment and need not wait. The Government are again being invited to do it, and my noble friend Lord Hutton has very powerfully made the case for why they should.
I have been careful to try not to put my personal preference in the proposals, but I would be happy to join the Minister in a proper cross-party, consensual discussion about the way forward. The Labour Party introduced auto-enrolment and I pay tribute to the Government for taking it forward. We all share a common objective: to get as many people as possible saving for retirement. They can do so only if they have trust and confidence in the pensions market and in the schemes they are investing in. If they do not have that confidence they will not save and we will all be the poorer. The best way to do it is to ensure that there are schemes in which people can have confidence. I believe this is the right way forward and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Freud
“( ) But the regulations may not provide for an exception for employers of a particular size.”
Lord Freud
My Lords, it was Parliament’s original intention that everyone should be automatically enrolled, subject only to age and earnings criteria. This has the advantage of a very simple approach. It made it clear that all employers, whatever their size or the nature of their business, would be covered. It relied on individuals to opt out if pension saving was not right for them.
We can now see that automatic enrolment into a workplace pension is working and we are seeing reassuringly low opt-out rates. However, we also recognise that there are some very limited situations in which automatic enrolment simply does not make sense for the jobholder. Opt-out is effective but it does not take away the need for employers and pension schemes to go through the enrolment processes and for the individual then to opt out, even where it clearly makes no sense for that individual to be put into pension saving. This is a waste of employers’ time and frustrating for individuals.
We continue to receive evidence from stakeholders of instances in which it makes no sense automatically to enrol individuals. Our consultation of March 2013, Technical Changes to Automatic Enrolment, sought views on how the automatic enrolment process could be improved and invited views on whether there were certain categories of workers whom it might make sense to exclude from automatic enrolment. The responses strengthened our view that in certain circumstances automatic enrolment is not appropriate and that, for these individuals, the most suitable option is to give their employer the option not to enrol them in the first place.
On 12 February, we published a response to the consultation on how the power to make exceptions to the automatic enrolment duty might be used and identified four situations which merit further consideration: first, people who could face tax charges if they make further pension savings; secondly, people serving a period of notice; thirdly, people about to leave their employment on retirement; and, fourthly, people who have already left their pension scheme following contractual enrolment.
As noble Lords know, Clause 38 gives us the scope to provide broad exceptions to the employer duty, but we have made it clear on more than one occasion that we will not use it to exclude large numbers of employers based solely on size or the nature of the employer’s business. We do, however, acknowledge that the power could, in theory, be used to exclude small and medium-sized employers and we understand the concerns raised by the Opposition on this point. We are content to limit the power so that it cannot be used in this way. Amendment 24 therefore specifies that regulations cannot exclude an employer from their automatic enrolment duties on the basis of size. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
Let me just deal with the first specific question raised by the noble Lord, on the issue of size and what we mean by that. Clearly, the Opposition were primarily concerned when we went through this in Grand Committee that a Government—this one or any other—should not be able to exclude small and medium-sized employers from their duties on automatic enrolment. The primary definition of size here is to prohibit an exception based on the number of workers, which is one central understanding of the size criteria, but it could also mean, as the noble Lord indicated, turnover, profit or VAT registration. We do not have the need to define it further in the Bill because whatever measure of size was used would be prohibited by the government amendment.
On whether there is a better way in which to limit the power, which is the thrust of the noble Lord’s question, we have identified these four circumstances. We are not confident that they are the only circumstances; more may come up. We have considered in legal terms that this is the best way to be able to respond in making sure that when other circumstances arise we can use this power. We believe that it is prudent to leave this Government and future Governments the flexibility to consider other criteria. However, I can say on the record that we have no particular situations in mind here; we are simply leaving ourselves the option to respond to new or changing circumstances.
On the four situations that have been identified, we will develop proposals for workable exceptions, and they may have to work in different ways in different circumstances. As the noble Lord said, we will consult with final proposals and draft regulations in due course, although of course regulations are contingent on Royal Assent.
I hope that with that set of explanations the noble Lord will greet with enthusiasm and delight this amendment in response to his concerns.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
My Lords, in moving Amendment 25, I shall speak also to government Amendments 26, 30, 31 and 26A.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions announced in a Written Statement in the other place at the start of this week, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that consumers receive value for money from their pension savings and to seeing this through during the life of this Parliament—a point that I made earlier. Our response to the consultation on charges, and further proposals on quality and transparency in defined contribution workplace pension schemes, will be published soon. We are taking action to ensure that those who are defaulted into pension saving through automatic enrolment can be confident that their money is invested in well governed and transparently managed schemes.
Amendment 26A demonstrates our firm belief that transparency of costs and charges is fundamental for good scheme governance and to enabling comparison between schemes. On this we are in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Lawson and the thrust of the amendments which he has tabled on this subject. I take this opportunity to thank him for the helpful discussions we have had on this issue thus far and I look forward to engaging with him further on the detail of these provisions. We have always been clear that disclosure of transaction costs should be improved; that is why we sought views on the best way of doing this in our consultation following on from the Office of Fair Trading study of the defined contribution workplace pension market. In the consultation, we suggested using our existing permissive powers in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to require improved disclosure of information. However, I am pleased that our Amendment 26A goes further than this and, for the avoidance of any doubt about our intentions, requires the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring greater transparency around the transaction costs incurred by work-based defined contribution schemes. It would also allow the Secretary of State to disapply that duty in limited circumstances in which he is content that there is an alternative regulatory regime in place for specified schemes. The intention is for this to provide for a situation in which the Financial Conduct Authority has made its own rules for disclosure of information about transaction costs in relation to contract-based schemes, in which case the Secretary of State may need to make regulations only for trust-based schemes which are regulated by the Pensions Regulator.
This amendment would provide for the types of transaction costs covered to be specified in regulations. Here again, we are in agreement with my noble friend Lord Lawson that the full range of transaction costs that may be borne by scheme members should be disclosed. I would like to reassure the House that we do have the powers to ensure that this happens, but the Government need the flexibility to require disclosure of types of costs that might become apparent over time. Government Amendment 26A has therefore been drafted specifically to provide this flexibility and to future-proof the legislation. We will formally consult before making the regulations but, at this stage, and in the first instance we would expect them to include costs such as stamp duty and bid-offer spreads. We would be more than happy to involve my noble friend Lord Lawson, and other noble Lords with an interest in this matter, in the discussion of what the regulations will cover.
The amendments of my noble friend Lord Lawson also provide for making information about transaction costs publicly available on a common basis. This is, again, a suggestion with which we fully agree and thank my noble friend for highlighting this issue. Making such information publicly available will surely support consumers, employers and others in making comparisons and deciding between schemes. Public comparison of charges is something on which we sought views in the recent charges consultation and will publish further proposals soon in the forthcoming government response. Our existing disclosure powers would enable us to regulate for information on transaction costs to be made public, but given the importance of this issue, I am happy to consider between now and Third Reading whether any changes can be made to primary legislation to reinforce and make explicit this commitment to provide for information to be made publicly available.
To touch briefly on the scope of the disclosure requirements, the duty that is created by this amendment applies to money purchase, or defined contribution, pension schemes only. This is narrower than the provisions of the existing power, which will remain, under which regulations can apply to all occupational and personal pension schemes. The reason why the Government are focusing the new duty on the defined contribution market in their package of measures on charges, scheme quality and transparency is that in defined contribution it is members who bear the risk of their investment, and members whose pension savings may be diminished by high or unclear charges. It is also the defined contribution market that the Office of Fair Trading has investigated and recommended action to reform.
Members of defined benefit pension schemes already enjoy a level of protection from such risks. However, the power to require greater transparency of scheme costs and charges could cover all schemes, and we will continue to consider whether we should use that power to require transparency in defined benefit as well as defined contribution schemes.
The new duties to disclose transaction costs will form one part of a wider package of measures to set minimum quality standards for all workplace defined contribution schemes, including taking action to control charges in default funds used for automatic enrolment.
We have, as I said, consulted on these measures and I expect the Minister for Pensions to respond formally soon. The Minister has been clear that we are committed to seeing this policy through during the life of this Parliament which, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, means before May 2015. For that reason, I see no need for Amendment 29. We have the power in Schedule 18 to restrict charges. I can reassure noble Lords that we would not have placed this power in the Bill if we did not intend to use it as soon as practicable. With regard to the precise timing of when these regulations shall be laid, I refer noble Lords to the Minister’s strong steer and I fully expect more detail to be available when the formal response is published.
Lord Freud
My Lords, this is a very substantial area and we are making very substantial moves. We are looking for transparency on all charges. We are looking to ensure that that is published. We are looking to make announcements on our capping plans soon. I enjoyed more than anything else the noble Lord, Lord Turner, teetering on the edge of giving investment advice, although I suspect he is privileged to do so here.
I will quickly recap some of the language in our Amendment 26A. It says “some or all” rather than “all” for drafting reasons. We need to set out, as far as we can, in regulations what costs should be included but our intention is to include all transaction costs, which incorporates not just the transaction costs that my noble friend Lord Lawson made the point about but all costs, because we have permissive powers in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to get all costs, not just transaction costs.
As I said, before Third Reading we will look at whether to include the defined benefit schemes and we will come back to that.
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—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I thank to the Minister for giving way. Do the words of the Pensions Minister in the other place, “strongly minded”, have the full, unambiguous support of HMRC?
Lord Freud
Yes. I do not want to go into the Lobby on this. I do not think we should; that is not the way that we have conducted the Bill, which we have done by information, support and debating the issues. We should not reduce ourselves to having a debate when we are saying exactly the same thing across the House. That is my request of the noble Lord.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“Disclosure of information about transaction costs to members etc
In section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (disclosure of information about schemes to members etc), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section requiring information about some or all of the transaction costs of work-based money purchase schemes to be given to some or all of the persons mentioned in subsection (2).
(6) But subsection (5) does not apply in relation to a scheme of a particular description if—
(a) as a result of another enactment, requirements are imposed relating to the disclosure of information about transaction costs of schemes of that description, and(b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, those requirements provide an adequate alternative to what is required by subsection (5).(7) In this section—
“work-based money purchase scheme” means a money purchase scheme that is—
(a) an occupational pension scheme,(b) a personal pension scheme where direct payment arrangements (within the meaning of section 111A) exist in respect of one or more members of the scheme who are workers, or(c) a personal pension scheme which is or has been registered under section 2 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (stakeholder pension schemes);“worker” means a person—
(a) who is a worker for the purposes of Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008, or(b) to whom a provision of Part 1 of that Act applies as if the person were a worker because of a provision of Chapter 8 of that Part;but for the purposes of paragraph (b), ignore section 92 of that Act.””
Lord Freud
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.
Lord Freud
“( ) A person credited with a length of notional pensionable service because of pension credit rights is to be treated for the purposes of this paragraph as having pensionable service of that length (in addition to any pensionable service that the person is treated as having under sub-paragraph (8)).”
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
“(9A) Where a person becomes entitled to relevant compensation in respect of benefits under two or more connected occupational pension schemes at the same time, this paragraph applies in relation to the relevant compensation in respect of each benefit as if—
(a) a reference to the length of the person’s pensionable service were a reference to the total length of the person’s pensionable service under all of the schemes (ignoring any period of overlap), and(b) sub-paragraphs (8) and (9) apply for the purposes of working out the length of the person’s pensionable service in respect of each scheme as if a reference to the admissible rules were to the admissible rules of that scheme.”
Lord Freud
“(8) Regulations under paragraph 26(9) of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (modifications for cases where compensation becomes payable on different occasions) made in consequence of this section may be made with retrospective effect.”
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, Amendment 41A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Browne calls for the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the impact of the Bill on specific groups. I recognise that the department undertakes research, but this amendment picks up on something slightly different: the impact on specific groups about which concern has been expressed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, or where provision is in effect a work in progress.
This is a major Bill that will have a significant impact on the majority of our citizens—indeed, on pretty much all of those who have yet to reach state pension age. If the Bill proves to be even half as good as the 1948 Act, it may be in place for a long time. The amendment calls for reviews of provisions made in the Bill to check that we have got it right and to enable us to make any necessary adjustments for those who are unfairly disadvantaged, or where provisions seem not to be working as we might have hoped.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause calls for a review of existing and future beneficiaries of the state pension scheme. When there are winners and losers we should review that to make sure that we have got the balance right. We should also include within the review an assessment of whether transitional arrangements are adequate and working.
Paragraph (b) relates to the operation of private pension schemes. Given the debates this evening, I hardly need detain the House further by sharing our views on whether the private pensions system is working well; I think that we all know that there are challenges. Some of the changes that are needed, such as to the annuity market, may well need primary legislation, but many will not. The review will take the opportunity to look at whether the various changes, legislative or not, which the Government have made and promised, are working effectively.
Paragraph (c) relates to the concerns expressed by many women born between 6 April 1951 and April 1953. I am sure that all noble Lords have had many communications from women in that category who are affected. In Grand Committee, the Minister was pressed by various noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to be clear as to whether or not this cohort of women would be better or worse off under the new system. The assumption of the Government is that they will be better off, but I never got a satisfactory response to the question I posed in Committee as to why the Government think that women born between 1951 and 1953 are better off under existing arrangements, and yet also claim that women will mostly be better off under the new pension arrangements. I still do not quite understand how both can be right. The amendment asks the Government to report to Parliament on the actual impact of these provisions, rather than simply relying on analysis of what the impact is likely to be.
Paragraph (d) focuses on the need for a review of the knowledge of young people of the system. Young people currently face a challenging work environment with high youth unemployment, the potential for high debts if they go to university and astonishingly high rents. We may safely conclude that, for most of them, concern about living in poverty in their dotage is not chief among their concerns, so a call to start contributing to an auto-enrolled pension may not ring loud. Yet that is of course the very best time to address those concerns.
Better financial education is needed, coupled with information about the importance of providing in future for their retirement. We owe it to young people to encourage them to consider making pension provision as soon as they are able to do so. This amendment seeks to keep track of the Government’s strategy to ensure that our young people are armed with a greater understanding of the need to proactively engage with pension decisions.
This is a far-reaching Bill and we should therefore make sure that we have got it right. Paragraph (e) of the proposed new clause recognises that the Select Committee, and indeed the Government, may identify other matters that should be reviewed and reported to Parliament.
The principle underpinning the Bill is that people should have a state pension that is simple to understand and that they should take responsibility for saving for their old age through work-based pensions. We also need to have it acknowledged today that the state owes a duty of care to the large numbers coming under auto-enrolment. In light of the broad consensus that industry must improve its standards and reduce its charges, its progress towards that should be monitored by Parliament. The amendment sets out a method of parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that we have got it right and that the Pensions Bill will last us, as the Minister aspires, for decades to come. As there will be an election before enactment—and, of course, a change of Government, one hopes—the amendment is prudent. I recommend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not think that anyone in the House can be under any misapprehension but that the Government value extremely highly the role of evidence, analysis, consultation and evaluation in policy-making. Our approach to designing this once-in-a-generation package of pension reforms has been heavily informed by a robust and wide-ranging evidence base. However, looking at the text of the amendment and its timing, I must make clear that the provisions on the new state pension, and many of the other provisions in the Bill, will simply not have been commenced by spring next year—the time used in this amendment. Therefore, all that would come out of such an amendment would be a rehash of the information that has already been provided to Parliament: there would be nothing to add. We have no particular objection to this amendment in terms of sentiment, but its timing is just not appropriate.
I will not spend a lot of time going through all the issues, which we have gone through in huge detail over the past weeks and months. However, I will touch on how we will monitor the impacts in the future and what the plans are. It is clearly imperative, as the noble Baroness said, that a set of reforms of this nature is accompanied by a strategic approach to monitoring at sensible intervals. I am not saying anything that noble Lords will disagree with when I state that pensions is a very long-term policy area, and that the impact of many measures will not be felt fully for decades.
As a society we are asking people to do more to think ahead and plan for their retirement. As a Government it is our duty to do the same in looking at the retirement outcomes of the population as a whole. Our retirement outcomes framework, published in September 2013, provides an overview of projected future retirement incomes, looking at the impacts of government pension reforms as a whole and across state and private systems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Perhaps the noble Lord could write to me if he does not have the answer at his fingertips. I respect his concern for evidence and policy base, but, as he will know, that depends on longitudinal statistics and their consistency. There has been quite a lot of dispute about threats to discontinue some of the longitudinal statistics which show households below average income, recipients of benefits, what is happening with pension credit, and so on. My noble friend Lady Lister, who is not here at the moment, has been concerned about that. Can the noble Lord write to us and tell us what series of statistics will be kept from the implementation of this Act, so that we can track, for example, the groups that my noble friend has mentioned—the 1951 to 1953 group—and what is happening to people who will lose their derived rights as married women, widows, divorcees and so on? What assurances can he give us about how we can be sure that we are in a position, if we need to be, to adjust policy because we have the information to hand?
Lord Freud
That is clearly a relevant and central set of issues, and it is quite technical. As the noble Baroness invited me to write, I will make sure that we produce a comprehensive look at exactly what these series are and what they will contain. I will be happy to arrange that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Also, what if any future surveys does the Minister expect the Government now to engage in as a result of this Act coming into force?
Lord Freud
I am happy to make sure that we itemise those in a way that will help noble Lords keep an eye on what they need to monitor as we go along.
We will update the modelling as evidence becomes available on the impact on work and saving of automatic enrolment, the single-tier state pension, and state pension age changes. As noble Lords will know, the department conducts a six-monthly tracking study of attitudes and behaviours in relation to pensions, later life and automatic enrolment. A similar exercise will start after Royal Assent, to monitor awareness and understanding of the reforms.
We are committed to the principle of post-legislative scrutiny, but such scrutiny must have scope to provide insights beyond the impact assessment and consultation practices to which we are already committed. I know that the noble Baroness accepts the point on timing, but the timing of this amendment would not add materially to the powers of the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Indeed, there is an awkwardness about the timing, because it straddles the next election. However, we look forward to continuing to develop pensions strategy with that committee’s input.
I know that the noble Lord does not appreciate my asking for the other side to withdraw this amendment and not press it to a vote, but that is the position I am in. Maybe there is more warmth to my request than there has been this evening.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, that would not be hard. I thank the Minister for that response, and I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for pressing him for more detail on how this will be monitored in future.
I am very grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s commitment to post-legislative scrutiny and for setting out his commitment to making sure that the impacts of the Bill are analysed carefully, and with the use of evidence. I will press him to do two things. The first is to give particular attention to the two groups mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hollis. The women born from 1951 to 1953 feel very strongly that they have missed out on something important with this. If the Government turn out to be right, and they are better off under the current system, it is important not just that the Government find that out but that they share that knowledge as widely as possible. If that is the case, those women will be reassured—and, if not, they have a right to know anyway. Can the Minister also look at the position of those who would have been affected by, for example, the removal of derived rights, and whether the transitional protections are working well for them?
Secondly, as well as all the work that has been done to an appropriate timescale, will the Minister give some thought to how that might best be shared with the House? The proceedings have been very good as the Bill has moved through Parliament. A lot of issues have been raised—in this House in particular—and a lot of expertise has been brought to bear on this, and we have all learnt a lot from the process. Having done that, rather than have the results of it disappear into the department, marvellous as it is, it would be helpful if they could come back out so that we can all learn from that, both for the Bill and for future legislation. However, I will take his assent to those marvellous suggestions as read, and on the basis of that—and because he asked so nicely—I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Pensions Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, cannot be present today for personal reasons. Given the circumstances, I should be happy to have further discussions with him about his Amendment 7.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend would wish to bring back his amendment at Third Reading. Would that be okay with the Minister?
Lord Freud
“In section 1 (outline of contributory system), in subsection (1)(a), after “this Act” insert “or any other Act”.
In section 13 (Class 3 contributions), in subsection (2), omit “contribution”.
After section 19A insert—
“19B Extended meaning of “benefit” etc in Part 1
In this Part references to “benefit” or “contributory benefit” include benefit under Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2014.””
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.
Lord German (LD)
Will my noble friend allow me a moment’s intervention? I was present at that meeting, and I found it very interesting to have a representative of HMRC there. One of the principal conclusions I drew from that meeting was that there was an agreement between the LGA and HMRC that they would examine up front any arrangement for the distribution of additional funds from HMRC to local government pension funds, and would get the process sorted out in advance so that if money became available the method of distribution would be quick and would help them in their procedure. Can my noble friend confirm my understanding that HMRC is onside with this?
Lord Freud
My noble friend is probably way ahead of everyone in this Chamber at this moment on this matter, but I think I can simply answer yes to his understanding. As he says, whereas final decisions tend to get taken at a relatively late moment, if the processes are well organised, that matters less and they can be effectively activated.
The ending of contracting out is an inevitable consequence of the state pension reforms. We want to manage this as smoothly as possible and to minimise impacts on employers, schemes and individuals. I have set out why the override is necessary and why the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord would make the override unworkable. Amendment 11 would in many cases allow trustees to block changes to the scheme and would increase the risk that employers would simply close their schemes. That is why I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. There is quite a lot in there which has cheered me up slightly—not everything, but bits of it. I am grateful for this update on the LGA position. We will watch this space. I am interested to see that there are other sectors that could be involved in that. I welcome the Minister’s statement in relation to the consultation of members of the scheme. I think I am quoting him correctly that the override does not affect the duty to consult, that the Government support the continuation of DB schemes and that the rules of such schemes on consultation are not affected by the override.
That deals with the consultation with members of the scheme, but it does not effectively deal with the trustee position, and the role of the trustees is very important in the future of the schemes and in future faith in them. The Minister said that trustees are bound to consult; yes, they are possibly bound to consult. The override clearly applies in his mind, and I presume the intention of the override is that in those schemes that require trustee consent, the employer, using Clause 24 and Schedule 14, can override the need for that consent. That seems a pretty fundamental alternation in the role of trustees. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government would reconsider that position.
I am grateful for the Minister’s view on accrued rights and the fact that Amendment 12 is not, therefore, needed. I am less grateful for his indication that “protected workers” will not apply to those who are protected on the word of the Government of the day but not actually embedded in statute. This applies principally to the gas workers and I suspect I will be in correspondence with him about that.
The central point of this group of amendments is that, in this clause, the Government have, effectively, overridden the governance structure of work-based occupational schemes by attacking the very fundamentals of trusteeship. That is a mistake. Over the years, many changes have been made at the behest of employers and with the agreement of trustees. Some of these were detrimental to future members because of the financial position of the scheme or legislative changes. Trustees are unlikely to be unable to recognise the need for such changes, but to override and delete trustee consent is a very serious step which the Government should be much more hesitant about taking. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and thank the Minister for some of his other remarks.
Lord Freud
“(4) The power may not be used—
(a) to make amendments that apply to a member who is a protected person in relation to a scheme, or(b) to amend a public service pension scheme or a scheme of a description specified in regulations under this paragraph.(5) Regulations must define what is meant by a protected person in relation to a scheme for the purposes of subsection (4)(a).”
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 16, I shall also speak to Amendment 17 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Browne. We on these Benches agree with the principle of raising the state pension age to reflect longevity. We accept the need for periodic reviews of the state pension age. Where we differ from the Government is on how best to do that.
Fixing the state pension age is never easy. There is always an issue of fairness at stake. Having a careful, evidence-based review before taking any future decisions on changes to the state pension age is a crucial element of ensuring fairness between generations. However, sometimes fairness requires a consideration of difference, particularly differences in longevity and health. The Government are setting considerable store by actuarial information on average life expectancy. However, while average life expectancy tells us something—mostly quite a lot about medical advances and their ability to keep us alive for longer—it does not tell us very much about our health in retirement or differential mortality rates.
We heard a great deal of evidence in Committee to inform our debate, and I certainly will not rehearse it all here, noble Lords will be relieved to hear. However, maybe the headlines are worth briefly restating. People are living longer, but the proportion of years in full health is not keeping track at the same rate. We have significant inequalities in health within the UK, and significant variations in mortality as a result. There are clear socioeconomic differences. There is a class divide, as managerial and professional classes live longer than manual workers by 3.8 years for women and 3.1 years for men. There is a clear geographical divide.
There is then the effect of this differential life expectancy on state retirement incomes, with the irony that those living the shortest lives post-retirement—the poorest and least skilled workers—will receive less in state pension than their better-off counterparts, but they may well have contributed for longer as a result of having spent less time in education.
If we want people to save for retirement, they need to trust the Government, to trust Parliament and to believe that their pensions are safe in our hands. The public need to know that they will not be at the mercy of political expediency, and that they will be protected from any adjustments that need to be made by ensuring that they are not made too quickly. Rather than simply being a matter for the Secretary of State, as the Bill proposes, we need a genuinely independent panel which has the kind of cross-party and independent representation that will reassure the public and give confidence to parliamentarians from across the spectrum. Our amendment proposes simply that the review body should include representatives of the opposition parties and of the Cross Benches of this House to ensure that Parliament as a whole is at the heart of this process. It would also include representatives of trade unions, who are themselves the representatives of those who are spending their ever-longer working lives saving for retirement. This broader representation will give people confidence that a wide range of views will be heard. I urge the Minister to accept it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, as your Lordships know, the purpose of the review of state pension age is to inform the Government. The reports from the Government Actuary and the independently led review, which will feed into the review, should collect and analyse the latest data, and give the Government of the day the information they need to make what will always be a difficult and contentious decision.
We are all keen that the Secretary of State receives a report that is impartial. Because we are requiring that all reports compiled as part of the review are published and all future changes to state pension age continue to go through primary legislation, any proposal based on a report that is not impartial, credible and comprehensive will quickly fall apart when scrutinised by stakeholders and both Houses of Parliament.
Turning first to the substance of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, if one thing is apparent it is that there is no clear consensus on who should sit on the review, what they should look at, or how they should collect the necessary evidence. We have been clear in Grand Committee and in the other place that this Government’s vision of the review is one similar to the independent review of public service pensions. That review was run by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, a member of the opposition Benches and an expert in his field. It was transparent, comprehensive, independent and established a consensus.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the Pensions Commission, set up by the previous Government, had three commissioners from the areas of business, trade unionism and academia: not a single politician or Cross-Bencher. That commission gained support through comprehensive and open debate about the issues and trade-offs, rather than being based on the inherent characteristics of the commissioners’ backgrounds.
In short, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, would preclude these two successful models. It would result in a body of at least six individuals from stakeholder groups, the other place and this House. It would not necessarily have the expertise to review the relevant data and would effectively create a mini parliamentary process before the parliamentary process proper. We do not think that is the right way to run a review designed to inform the Government. In the Bill as currently drafted there is nothing to prevent a future Government running the review in whatever way they think best. That is a key point underpinning our approach to the review—getting future Governments to take active ownership of and responsibility for all aspects of the review, instead of just going through the motions.
Turning to the factors to be considered as part of any review, I must note that in response to the recommendation made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Sherlock, we do not have the data regarding the relationship between specific occupations or types of work and life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Beginning to collect such data would be both burdensome and, I imagine, for some professions simply impossible. More generally, we do not think it is necessary to specify any factors to be considered in legislation. We have already consulted stakeholders on what factors they think are important, and stated the factors we expect to be considered in the White Paper. The Opposition are worried that by not specifying the factors in legislation, future reviews simply will not consider important variables. However, what kind of support would such a review generate?
We want to encourage all interested parties to feed in their thoughts and contributions to better involve them. Specifying factors in the Bill could send out the message that we have already thought of everything important, and that future Governments do not need to consider additional factors as they are not set out in primary legislation. Such an approach could lead to a tick-box mentality, with Governments simply going through the motions instead of taking a proper, considered approach to each review. My point is illustrated by the fact that another factor has been added to the Opposition’s amendment since its predecessor was tabled only a month or so ago. Other noble Lords have also previously suggested additional factors, including life expectancy of the lowest income decile, prevalence of smoking and quality of diet. This demonstrates that the determination of relevant factors should take place after a thorough and extensive consideration and on an iterative basis for each review.
I turn now to the review’s remit. We believe that the Government should maintain control of this to keep it focused on the task at hand. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State of the day updating the remit of the review, and we—or, more importantly, stakeholders—would fully expect him or her to do just this if new and compelling factors were identified during the course of the review.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also requires evidence to be gathered in public sessions. Although there is nothing in the Bill to prevent some evidence being taken orally—rather as Select Committees do—noble Lords will be aware that the nature of the analysis around state pension age, such as the myriad tables, charts and graphs, does not lend itself well to public sessions. Underpinning our approach is the idea that each Government will fully own and be responsible for the review. Setting out membership and factors to be considered restricts rather than increases that responsibility. It would instead limit the scope of reviews and reduce engagement by stakeholders. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank the Minister for his response. It does not surprise me, but, on the other hand, I still think that the type of work that people do is very important. There are, of course, already industries in this country in which there are different ages of retirement for different types of work. It is not unusual for that to happen; indeed, it is quite a common practice, if an industry is particularly stressful or difficult, for there to be a lower retirement age for that kind of work. It is not an unusual state of affairs but one that is highly regarded where it applies—and people accept it. They think, “Oh well, that sort of work is very tough, but at least you go a bit early for it. You don’t have to stay and work there—after a certain time you can go”.
My husband, who was a pilot in the war, tried to stay in the Air Force because they were recruiting people to fly civil aircraft when the war ended. He tried to get into civil aircraft because he was a pilot, with decorations, but he was disappointed to find that he could not do so. He wanted to get into the civil air force because they had an early retirement age; he thought that he could retire at 50 and start becoming a full-time artist, which is what he had always wanted to do. But he did not manage to do that. I give that as an example, because the age of retirement was different than for general people. So it is not an unusual situation.
I still think that it is quite sensible to have a provision under which it is possible for a review to take seriously into account the type of work that is involved. However, I note what the Minister has said this evening and I shall study it with interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, in Committee the Minister came under sustained pressure on this matter from my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord McKenzie, among others, and I am sure that he did not expect to emerge unscathed from Report. Many noble Lords pressed the Minister in Committee to try to understand what the consequences of this increase in means-testing would be. In particular, they were concerned about what would happen to those older pensioners who inadvertently, or perhaps negligently, fail to report changes of circumstances.
The Minister could not assuage our fears in Committee but wrote to us subsequently. That was helpful as it made clear what would happen. The letter he sent to us, dated 20 January, noted that claimants of any age who commit benefit fraud can be prosecuted. However, it also says:
“DWP may offer an Administrative Penalty as an alternative to prosecution. That penalty is 50% of the overpayment with a minimum value penalty of £350 and a maximum of £2000”.
When a claimant makes an error resulting in an overpayment, the letter explains that,
“a DWP decision maker will consider the full circumstances of the individual case … taking into account the reasons that led to the error”.
The letter then referred us to the guidance for decision-makers. I read this guidance so that noble Lords would not have to, and that is an hour of my life that I will not get back, so anyone who feels that he would like to buy me a drink at any point to say thank you is most welcome to do so. However, having done so, I then discovered the following. Incidentally, CPen means civil penalty and DM means decision-maker. The guidance states:
“Before imposing the CPen, the DM must establish that the claimant
1. has acted negligently and
2. has failed to take any reasonable steps to correct the error that led to the overpayment”.
I accept that the word “negligently” implies something serious. However, on the “Meaning of ‘negligently’”, the guidance continues:
“DMs should note that negligently should be taken to mean acting carelessly, not paying sufficient attention to the task in hand, or disregarding the importance of what is required to be done in relation to the claim or an award”.
In other words, that is a pretty low bar.
A number of noble Lords expressed concerns—as has been done very clearly by my noble friend just now—about what happens to pensioners who might struggle to keep the paperwork together or report every relevant change. The letter from the Minister said that robust safeguards are in place to ensure that matters such as mental capacity are considered. However, the guidance also makes clear that misrepresentation can involve simply leaving a section blank, perhaps because someone cannot figure out how to fill it in at that point and forgets to go back and do so later. The guidance also states at paragraphs 09206-7 that a claimant cannot avoid responsibility for misrepresentation just on the grounds that they claim they did not know what they were doing. It states:
“Non-responsibility is limited to those who are blind, illiterate or do not fully understand a particular form they have signed. Poor education, illness or inborn incapacity alone is not sufficient to show non-responsibility. People are expected to take reasonable steps to understand what they sign”.
This is exactly the sort of reason why so many pensioners dread means-testing and do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. If the Minister does not want to accept this amendment tonight, I plead with him to do one thing. Will he please take this guidance away urgently and have it revised before this legislation ever is introduced, so that pensioners are not expected to follow these kinds of rules?
Lord Freud
My Lords, assessed income periods were introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, during the passage of the State Pension Credit Act 2002. At that time it was assumed that income and capital for those above pensionable age remained relatively stable and it therefore made good sense to relax reporting requirements, both for the individual and the department in terms of running costs. This was still the case in 2007 when the Government of the day introduced indefinite assessed income periods for those aged 80 or over.
The noble Baroness said just now that income and capital do not fluctuate by much. We have now tested those assumptions, analysed around 100,000 cases and come to the conclusion that there is actually a greater degree of volatility in people’s financial circumstances than she and the department had anticipated at the relevant times. In some cases, assessed income periods have allowed people to continue to receive pension credit following a change in their circumstances when they would not have been entitled to it had they made a new claim at that point. The evidence means that we have had to think again about the viability of the policy and have concluded that AIPs should be abolished. Ultimately, if we were to allow AIPs to continue, the taxpayer would be providing support to people who no longer need it. It would mean retaining a system in which we can only apply changes to retirement provision that would increase an award but cannot take account of windfalls that would otherwise see a reduction in or loss of benefit.
Let me be clear, we are not changing entitlement rules. We are changing the reporting system so that people’s benefit entitlement reflects their circumstances at the time. To that end, we are looking to simplify the reporting requirements so that we are able to support those who need it most and best target our benefit expenditure. I am of course mindful that by changing reporting requirements some people may find it more difficult to adjust, particularly those of the most advanced years who may have the greatest difficulty in contacting us. This is why existing indefinite assessed income periods in place prior to 2016 will continue.
For those new recipients, or those on fixed-term AIPs, we will have the opportunity to explain clearly what does and does not need to be reported at the point of claim or when their existing claim is reviewed. I stress that pension credit is already designed in such a way as to minimise reporting requirements. For example, changes to capital only need to be reported if their total amount exceeds £10,000. Currently, only 12% of people on pension credit have capital above that level. People would need to report new income streams, but we will continue to take into account annual increases in pensions automatically, based on what people tell us. We will also encourage people to tell us if their capital falls below £10,000 or if any income stops, to ensure that we capture beneficial changes.
Lord Freud
Take-up of pension credit guarantee credit, which is aimed at the poorest pensioners, is already high at 82%. However, I think that it would be better if I offered to write to the noble Baroness on the exact nature of the evidence which I do or do not have. Actually, I do not need to write because I can tell her that her second supposition is correct. We do not have any evidence either way. With that covered, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am not going to pretend that I am not disappointed with the Minister’s reply. I thought that he showed a degree of sympathy and understanding in Committee, particularly of the plight of older pensioners in their late 70s or their 80s, or perhaps older still, who are getting increasingly frail and confused. I thought he understood that. That is why in this amendment I dropped the idea of periodic assessments and simply suggested that, while the Minister does what he thinks is appropriate or is required to do on this in terms of having annual means-testing until the age of 75, at least from 75 onwards he could abandon the annual means-testing system.
I really do not think that the Minister has addressed the issue. He said, first, that he thinks that the savings would be reduced by 30%. I suspect that that is a slightly arbitrary figure, arrived at by dividing the number of years and the percentage of savings, but it takes no account whatever of the fact that means-testing will already have excluded pensioners at an earlier stage. I suspect that at least half his savings will come from the fact that pensioners do not claim what they are entitled to, rather than them not getting what they otherwise would by having annual means-testing.
The Minister said that if those under 75 were annually means-tested but those over 75 were not, that would give rise to appeals and disputes. What evidence does he have for that? After all, we have had periodic means-testing since 2008. How many appeals have there been from people under the age of 75 against the “no further means-testing at 75” rule, and what has been the result of those appeals? I shall give way to the Minister. He ran that argument, so I presume that he has some statistics for us.
Lord Freud
I shall have to supply the statistics separately and will do so in writing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, forgive me, but trying to persuade the House that this would generate appeals and disputes and not presenting to noble Lords what is already a firm basis of evidence from the existing situation does not seem acceptable. I rather doubt that the Minister has more than a couple of handfuls of cases but we will see when he digs out his statistics. I just do not think that it is a valid argument and I have not had a shred of evidence from him or the Box to support it, although I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
However, my deepest concern—and it is one that I do not think the Minister has addressed—is just how profoundly unfair this is. I am baffled that he does not seem to accept that argument. He is quite deliberately building means-testing out of the new state pension, and I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, every reason he adduces for building it out of the new state pension applies equally for not continuing to means test after 75. Every argument that supports the new state pension works to support the amendment and not continuing means-testing after 75. If means-testing is so innocent, why get rid of it in the new state pension? The Minister knows, as we all know, on the basis of good and effective DWP research, that means-testing is loathed by pensioners and they do not take up the benefits they are entitled to. That is what the Minister is counting on for his savings and it is profoundly unfair.
Pensioners slightly younger are built out of means-testing because the whole lot of pension credit has been thrown out of their new state pension. One day older and they are not only going to be means-tested but means-tested annually until the day they die, until they are 90. That is shameful. The Minister is widening the gap between younger pensioners, who will be much better off and with no means-testing, and the pensioners who will be staying with the old system, who are already older and poorer and who will have a lower pension and face means-testing. He is widening the disparity rather than narrowing it.
That is not good enough. It is not decent. The Minister is profoundly wrong on this but, given the lateness of the hour, obviously I will not seek the opinion of the House at this time of night. I will withdraw the amendment but with a heavy heart because it is profoundly wrong to widen the gap between older and younger pensioners at a time when we are trying to build means-testing out of the system and the Minister is reinforcing it back in again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pensions Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for the amendment which gives an opportunity to debate again a most important issue which is close to her heart and with which I am sympathetic. Over the years we have had quite a few discussions on how the issue is best addressed.
Single-tier reforms strengthen the contributory principle and reduce disparities in outcomes between individuals. They are designed to fit with the working lives of today’s young people, who should find it much easier to plan for the future, counting on a full single-tier pension. At first glance, it may appear that the national insurance treatment of those in low-paying mini-jobs is at odds with these principles. However, I would like to explain why we think mini-jobs are not the problem they might seem to be and why, looking at how to adjust the national insurance system to combat this perceived problem, we may end up with solutions which create more problems and knock-on impacts than they solve.
The noble Baroness has been as assiduous as always in exploring all the sources to illustrate her case for change. Her central estimate was that 250,000 people would be affected. I continue to be confident in the department’s estimate of the number who—if we were to aggregate their earnings in the way proposed—would gain that extra qualifying year. That number is some 50,000 at any one time, which is fewer than one in 500 workers. This number makes perfect sense when you look at the opportunities the national insurance system provides for gaining state pension qualifying years. The entry point for workers is through the lower earnings limit, which is set at £109 a week. This is £40 below the primary threshold which is when national insurance starts to be paid. At the national minimum wage, this is just 18 hours a week for a year or six months of full-time work. There is also a comprehensive crediting system that recognises caring responsibilities and those unable to work.
The 50,000 figure is a snapshot from 2012-13 and individuals may gain a qualifying year in other years. In the single-tier system, full pension entitlement is achieved after someone has built up 35 qualifying years. People can therefore spend a third of their working lives outside the national insurance system and still gain the full single-tier amount. This was a deliberate part of our design, to recognise that people have increasingly varied careers and working lives, and yet can still reasonably count on a full single-tier pension in their retirement planning.
My noble friend Lord German inquired about the timetable for the introduction of universal credit. We are planning to pull that in for the bulk of people, virtually everyone, in 2016 and 2017. That would certainly include everyone in the workforce. The numbers beyond that are some of the people who are currently on ESA on a long-term basis in the support section.
If we were to take a similar snapshot to that of the 50,000 in 2012-13 but in 2017, we would find that individuals with the same characteristics may well be getting a credit through universal credit. This will bring at least a further 800,000 people into national insurance credits. For instance, the partner of the claimant or those on very low earnings—below the lower earnings limit—will be brought into universal credit because the Government believe that it should pay to work.
We have had a parallel discussion on zero hours, which has clearly been a source of concern around the Chamber today. There is concern at one level from the employment practices perspective. As noble Lords are fully aware, BIS is consulting on this issue. There is also a degree of uncertainty around the prevalence of this practice and whether it is increasing; as noble Lords have pointed out, the ONS is looking closely at evidence for this. However, we know that the proportion of women with two or more jobs is similar to the proportion of 10 years ago; in other words, around 5% of all workers. We are not talking about using the word “exponential”, which I have heard around the Chamber once or twice this afternoon. The number of women in full-time work rose in the past year by more than 270,000, and the number of women in two jobs actually decreased in that year by 25,000.
Clearly, when we look at zero-hours contracts, I need to make the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that I did not indicate in Committee, nor have I indicated, that the number of individuals on those contracts was small or in some way insignificant. However, the question at hand here is about access to the national insurance system and there is no evidence to suggest that being on this type of contract presents barriers to entering the national insurance system because of low pay.
Figures from the Labour Force Survey and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—the CIPD—both show that those on zero-hour contracts work an average of around 20 hours a week, as my noble friend Lord German pointed out. This is enough to exceed the lower earnings limit even on the national minimum wage of £6.31 an hour. Data from the ONS suggest that the average wage for those on a zero-hours contract is nearer £200 a week. In response to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the Labour Market Statistics show that full-time employment in the year is up 408,000, and part-time employment has gone down by 12,000.
I understand that the amendment is permissive, and even without any evidence of a significant problem one might think it would be helpful to increase the Government’s options in this respect. However, it is simply not necessary, given the extensive regulation-making powers already available, to modify the crediting system. In response to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, it is hardly useful to have redundant legislation on the books.
This amendment would allow people to opt in to have their earnings aggregated. It is not clear that this can be achieved without requiring a very high evidence base. For instance, if we introduced a system where people could effectively send in the employee’s rate of national insurance, we introduce incentives for employers to play the system. Some will contrive to avoid employers’ national insurance but without disturbing their employees’ national insurance position. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that the employer need not pay national insurance. However, even if that were the case there is still a significant burden on the employer. We also could not verify the wages without disproportionate cost. This would incentivise people to underreport earnings to get into the system on the cheap.
Aggregating earnings would have significant consequences for employers, including those people who would not now consider themselves to be employers. Take, for instance, the position of a woman whose job it is to clean private houses for a few hours each day of the week. The nature of the work would mean that she is likely to be employed and could have a number of jobs with different households. Under aggregation, each of those households would need to operate a Pay As You Earn scheme. They would need to contact HMRC to open such a scheme. They would then need to obtain and familiarise themselves with payroll software and use it to report earnings under real-time information to HMRC every time they pay their cleaner.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on joined-up thinking between the DWP and HMRC, I am pleased to say that we are actually working—I suspect for the first time—in a very joined-up way to get the RTI system to work. However, we do not want to require employers who would otherwise not have to have a PAYE scheme to open one up on an ad hoc basis. The point discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which would allow people to class themselves as self-employed, seems slightly odd given the concern about job security that motivates the debate we have just had over zero-hours contracts. Blurring the line between employment and self-employment is a minefield from a tax policy perspective. It introduces incentives to create more mini-jobs and to play the system.
The processes required to capture and collate earnings from people in mini-jobs cannot be achieved by simply tweaking the system. Moving to the aggregation of earnings from mini-jobs can only sensibly be considered under the work on the operational integration of income tax and national insurance contributions announced at Budget 2011 by the Chancellor. As noble Lords will be aware, national insurance liability is calculated on a per job basis but income tax liability is aggregated across all sources of earnings so the issues are similar. The Government concluded that given the scale of the change that operational integration would entail and the amount of change that employers are already managing, including the introduction of real-time information, they would await further progress on these before moving forward on tax/national insurance integration.
In the short term, we are not complacent and are determined that people who do the right thing and work are treated fairly. Beyond a radical overhaul of state pensions in this part of the Bill, specifically to make it fit for today’s workers, I have described work that this Government have undertaken to expand crediting coverage for low earners through universal credit and improving monitoring of zero-hours contracts.
This amendment may be intended to place a marker to nudge the Government into taking action, but it comes without strong evidence of a problem and the type of action that it promotes is piecemeal tinkering, which could create perverse outcomes and new unfairnesses, especially in the tax and national insurance system. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I should like first to say a word about procedure. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her place; that is helpful. This is a paving amendment that the Public Bill Office assures me is appropriate. Amendment 21 in this group—and only Amendment 21—is consequential on Amendment 2. Therefore, any vote on the first amendment is, in the words of the Companion, also a vote on its directly consequential amendment—although it does not, of course, determine any other amendments in the group. If it were not directly consequential there would be no point in a paving amendment. As I have carefully taken the clerk’s advice on this, I hope that the Minister and the House will agree with my statements. If the Minister does not agree that Amendment 21 is consequential, perhaps he could indicate so now because I would not wish to waste the House’s time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am grateful to the noble Lord, as this allows us to have a substantive discussion on bereavement—which I know concerns many of your Lordships—in good time and not in the late hours this evening. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the situation of distressed children and widowed parents. I hope that I can refer generally to widows, as there are three times as many women who are bereaved with children as men—and I know that the Minister means well by them. I hope that the House will agree that this is neither a party matter nor, as it is permissive, a cost matter, as the cost is almost too low to estimate.
This is a modest amendment that seeks to help widowed persons avoid additional pressure in the most stressful and distressing period of their lives. Three-fifths of bereaved parents are in work at the time of bereavement—virtually all fathers and around half or so of mothers. Most fathers with a terminally ill wife continue, or continued, to work. Most mothers, however, give up their jobs to care for their husband. Fathers would normally go back to work after a couple of weeks; indeed, they are often anxious to do so. Some mothers may feel able to do so as well, depending on the age of their children and the nature of their job. However, many widowed mothers were not in work, because they had younger children, or they had stopped working to become carers and—this is key—many mothers who were in work when their husband died drop out of work for some time while they support their children. If they return to work later, it may be to a different job, to one that is part-time or less demanding. Whereas work seems to be essential and continuous for fathers, it becomes secondary and broken for bereaved mothers.
The Government are reconstructing bereavement benefits, with more money paid as an up-front lump sum and less as a monthly payment—which, at £400 a month, will be paid only for 12 months and topped up by universal credit while the claimant is out of work. After 12 months, bereavement support payments stop and, if the parent does not return to work, she may draw her full income from UC. Being on UC normally entails work conditionality—entering or re-entering the labour market. The Minister has agreed—for which I am delighted—that for kinship carers, work conditionality associated with claiming UC should not apply for 12 months after they have taken on the care of children. But—and this is the point of my amendment—work conditionality for widowed parents, unlike for kinship carers, will kick in after six months, not 12 months, while they are still on bereavement benefit. That benefit runs for 12 months precisely because the Minister, in all decency—and I respect him for it—recognises that they need that support for 12 months. Surely work conditionality should be aligned with those 12 months.
The Minister said in Committee that he thought that six months’ relief from work conditionality while on bereavement allowance, if the claimant receives some UC top-up, was “generous”. I confess that that shocked me. It is generous only by comparison with the situation of someone who is not a bereaved spouse, and I think that that is not a proper comparison. If the mother has returned to work, or wants help to do so earlier than that—and some will—that is fine, but I do not think it right and decent to require her to attend work interviews and full work conditionality and job-hunting after six months, when she has grieving children who need her more than ever.
In Committee, the Minister justified this by saying that work conditionality after six months,
“is necessary to help them adjust and regain control of their lives”.—[Official Report, 15/1/14; col. GC 146.]
I was shocked by that as well. From my experience, the exact opposite is true. If work conditionality kicks in at six months while the woman is still on bereavement benefits and she is not ready for it, she loses what little control she has in handling her family life. Instead, that power is transferred to the DWP—perhaps to a 23 year-old young man in a local benefit office who, I expect, will be well intentioned until the pressure of targets bears down on him. He is probably a young man without children and without any experience of bereavement. It is assumed that he knows better than she does what is best for her and her children in their grief. I hope that he asks his own mother for advice, because he probably will not have a clue.
I do not think that that is acceptable. We are turning this young man at the age of 23 into her parent and treating her as the child, denying her, as a parent, the ability to look after her children in the way she believes is best. This is a sort of cruel-to-be-kind, tough-love philosophy towards a grieving widow and severely distressed children. Tough love is perhaps fine for youngsters who are on JSA and do not want to get up in the morning, but we are bullying into seeking work a widow with children who is still numb with grief and hugely distressed. We really cannot have that.
In this paving amendment and the consequential amendment attached to it I am not arguing that a widow’s benefit should be increased, although personally I would support that. The amendment is not about more money; it is about allowing widows to decide what is best for them and their family in the immediate aftermath of bereavement. For me, the immediate aftermath is the first year during which all the anniversaries occur—Christmas, his birthday and the anniversary of his death. I know, as do many of your Lordships, that that first year is the hardest.
I ask your Lordships to put themselves in the widow’s place. Her husband’s death may have been sudden, due to an accident at work or in the car, and she is still traumatised by the shock, or he may have died after an illness such as a stroke or cancer and she is exhausted through caring for him. She is wiped out and her mental and physical health is pretty fragile. It is just at this time when, although she is exhausted herself, her children are distraught and most need her. Children I know who have experienced the death of a parent have regressed into bed-wetting, nightmares, broken sleep and school phobia. They have lots of mysterious tummy aches and frequent headaches, and they display challenging and clearly needy behaviour. Irrationally, they suffer anguish that in some way they were responsible for their father’s death. They feel guilty that they had never told the lost parent how much they loved him and are fearful that they may lose their mother as well.
Older children worry about their mother’s safety if she is late back, or they fear they may lose their home. They are profoundly upset a second time over at their mother’s grief. Stoically they try not to weep, as that makes it harder for her to cope. “He is not here to hug me”, said one young girl. They dream of him and experience severe depression. Children need their surviving parent to be physically available for them. They need the trust that exists between a child and his mother to discuss their father’s death. Emotional availability follows from that. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord German, quoted very movingly from research into the effect of bereavement on children’s later lives, from delinquency to poor mental health and suicide risk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned cases of multiple deaths.
Every family is different, as is the work status of any bereaved parent, but this amendment, at no cost, permits the bereaved parent to decide what is appropriate for her and her family. We know that currently, bereaved parents do not take all the time off that they could from work. They do not exploit the system; they do not abuse it; they do not milk it. They want to work when they feel fit enough and their children are steady enough, but only they know that, not the DWP or the local benefit office. That is the point of having 12 months of bereavement payments. Insisting on work interviews and work conditionality at six months, or even leaving it to the discretion of 23 year-olds in local offices, adds stress to the suffering of the parent and distress to the pain of the child. We really should not do that.
The amendment would give widowed parents a breathing space from work conditionality alongside a bereavement payment while they rebuild their fractured lives. This House has always looked out for widows and children and I hope that it will do so again today. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the House may find it helpful to know that, although I do not agree that a change to conditionality in respect of only this specific group of amendments is appropriate, I am proposing to conduct a wider review into the circumstances where children could be in considerable distress and where it is clear that conditionality should not be applied. I am not attempting to curtail debate but it may be of advantage to the House to have that information in order that we may have a more informed debate on this group of amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in this group. I am grateful to the Minister for informing us of his proposal to hold a review of the level at which conditionality is set in relation to considerable distress in bereaved children. I appreciate his concern and the time that he has spent with me and others in looking at the problems of bereaved children.
However, I must point out that bereaved children express emotions differently from adults. Indeed, the most distressed children often appear almost blunted to the death of the parent and are simply quiet, withdrawn and can even appear disinterested. I hope that there will be no attempt to assess an individual child’s distress because I can foresee the problem of some families blaming that child for not caring enough, and therefore blaming that child for somehow not falling into a group that could have had more benefit. Sadly, transference occurs in bereavement and sometimes bereaved parents project their anger at the death on to the way in which the bereaved child is behaving and are on a very short fuse with the child, which compounds that child’s isolation. These are complex situations and there are serious long-term sequelae.
When a parent dies the support that the state offers must be easy to understand. It must support the widowed parent in providing support to their grieving children. Noble Lords are well aware that the death of a parent places enormous pressure on the rest of the family. The surviving parent has to both provide stability to children and adjust to life as the sole carer and earner while dealing with their own grief as well as that of their children. Quite often they have had no time to begin to adjust to impending widowhood—for example, in any sudden death, whether it is through a road accident, manslaughter, murder, suicide or whatever—and yet their children’s need for stability following the death of a parent makes it vital that the surviving parent is available to them, is present and is able to respond to their needs, which may change almost from minute to minute, hour to hour.
Stopping payments after only one year will have a significant impact on family finances but the major disruptions include the widowed parent often having to increase their working hours to replace lost income, thereby being less available to the children at the time when they are most in need of support. Amendment 18 seeks to increase the period of time that the bereavement support payment is payable to at least three years or until the youngest child has reached the age of seven, whichever is the longest period.
Can the Minister clarify the cost analysis that underpins the decision to end bereavement support payment after only one year, because one year is much too short to address a family’s needs? Removing the payment at the first anniversary of the death adds an additional pressure on the family at a time that is already very emotionally difficult when they often relive the acute episode surrounding the bereavement. Many families report that the second and subsequent years following bereavement are even harder than the first because support from friends and family tends to disappear and children can experience late effects of dealing with grief and bereavement.
The current allowance is paid until the youngest child leaves full-time education. The proposal to reduce this to a period of just one year is a dramatic change. Data provided by the Childhood Bereavement Network suggest that only one family in 28—that is, 4%—claims for less than one year. Most families would therefore receive payments under this Bill for a much, much shorter time than they would under current arrangements, especially if the children are younger. In Committee I described the shortening of this period of time as cruel. A year is a very short time in the life of those bereaved, whether adult or child.
The current benefit is paid until children leave full-time education in recognition partly of the complex emotional needs of young children. Removing the payment when the dependent children are very young is particularly worrying. Pre-school children become very clingy when they realise that one parent is no longer around. They require stability and security. The grief of losing a parent is challenging enough without compounding the disruption caused by the stress of worsened financial hardship for the surviving parent with the premature ending of a bereavement support payment.
Amendment 19 seeks to clarify that the bereavement support payment will be payable to a widow who is pregnant at the time of her spouse’s death. Can the Minister confirm that when the spouse of a pregnant woman dies the allowance would be payable to her? Amendment 20 seeks to clarify what support would be offered in the tragic event of both parents dying. Can the Minister confirm that in the event that both parents die, the guardian of the surviving children under the age of 18 will be eligible for any bereavement support payment which would have been paid to a surviving parent had that parent not died, and that the guardian has six months in which to lodge the claim? Can the Minister also confirm that the changes to the bereavement support payment do not affect the guardian’s allowance? Finally, can the Minister confirm that changes to the bereavement support payment do not affect child benefit?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am not surprised, having sat through Committee, that this has been such a powerful debate. We have had some very important, moving and well informed speeches at all stages of the Bill touching on these subjects. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for sharing their expertise in these areas, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for being willing to share with us the experience of bereavement and its ongoing impact on one’s life at any age.
My noble friend Lady Hollis laid out the case very strongly at the outset. I am delighted that the Minister is interested in reviewing the impact on families with a distressed child and how that relates to conditionality in the future. It is an excellent commitment and I look forward to seeing the results of it. It is up to my noble friend Lady Hollis to make a judgment on this but I do not think that that in any way precludes the need for this amendment, which is about a very specific category of person—people who are bereaved and who may find themselves going on to claim universal credit but who would normally be expected to go out to work because they had children of school age. Both of those things are important.
I still have with me the very powerful speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby at Second Reading, in which he laid out his experience of pastoral care for the bereaved, something reprised very effectively today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. I do not need to say very much more about why this matters. Many Members of this House have had experience of bereavement in one way or another and there can be few more important issues than how a country supports its citizens when the worst of all possible things happens to them.
The Government’s case throughout this debate has been that these bereavement reforms are not really about money. From 2016 to 2020, they estimate the changes will cost an extra £110 million, because they will protect payments under the current system, but that thereafter, in total, there will be small savings. The argument is that these are reforms not cuts. The Government have said throughout that they want to simplify the system and put resources where, in their view, they are most needed: as a short-term intervention to allow a bereaved spouse or civil partner to deal with the immediate costs of the death of a partner. If support is needed in the longer term, that is what universal credit is for.
Amendments 18 to 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, address the question of how long bereavement support should be paid for. In Committee, the noble Baroness laid out some very moving circumstances in which families could find themselves, clearly drawing on her own clinical experience. I know that the Minister expressed sympathy with what she said, and it may be that his review of distress will address that. I would be interested to see what he has to say when he comes to speak.
Amendments 2 and 21, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis, quite specifically seek to relax the work conditionality requirement for those in receipt of bereavement support payment. This is particularly important for widowed parents. There is a difference between those who do not want to work and those who would like to work, or go back to work, but who have been forced to recognise that the reality of the state that their children are in is such that they have to choose—of course they will choose their children and not work, unless they have literally no choice. Some parents will need a longer period, both to adjust to their own grief and shock and to deal with the grief and shock faced by their children.
It has already been pointed out that the regulations for universal credit mean that kinship carers are exempt from work conditionality for a year from the time that they assume the care of the child. This was agreed by the Minister—under the persuasive pressure of my noble friend Lady Drake and others—in recognition of the fact that adults need time to adjust to being, effectively, a single parent. Why should the same principle not apply to bereavement? I would be very interested if the Minister could answer one question about his review: does he intend to change the regulations to allow bereaved parents specifically to be exempt from conditionality? In Committee, he said that he was reviewing this and that he wanted to change the guidance given to decision-makers in jobcentres. But that is a very different question altogether. I can see why that might be the way forward for distress in general—after all, distress comes in very different forms and some judgment would have to be made about when the family was distressed. The awful thing about bereavement is that it is horribly clear: one is either bereaved or one is not, and I therefore do not think there is a need for the kind of flexibility that might be needed in other circumstances.
I also worry because I have heard many cases, as I am sure other noble Lords have, where young jobcentre officials, with the best of intentions, ended up making bad decisions because they did not properly understand what it was like to be a single parent trying to juggle more than one child and a part-time job. That person could of course simply say, “I am sorry but despite whatever you say, I am not going back to work because I have to prioritise my children”. If that happens, their benefits get sanctioned. They can appeal, but do we really want them to have to go through that six months after losing their husband, wife or civil partner? When 58% of appeals against sanctions on jobseeker’s allowance are successful, how much are we willing to bet the farm on the effectiveness of decisions by individuals in jobcentres? In my case, it would be not very much.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord German, used words such as “harsh” and “cruel” to describe the decision to force widowed parents back to work after six months. I believe that he was right. He cited the research, which he touched on again today, showing that outcomes for children very much depend on the effectiveness of the remaining parent in coping. That is partly about their availability to children. All that this amendment from my noble friend Lady Hollis does is to ask that those widowed parents who need to claim universal credit alongside bereavement support payment to make ends meet should not be required to go back to work for 12 months. After all, the Government have decided to focus their support on that first 12 months, so surely they should be willing simply to stretch this for the same period.
I have heard it said that a year is too long: since employers do not offer bereavement leave for a year, why should the state? It is because employers cannot do that that so many parents end up giving up their jobs when they lose their spouse or civil partner. The combination of burdens is simply too much to cope with. Universal credit is meant to be the safety net for those very parents, and it must be here. This amendment specifically recognises that the Government are planning to recycle all the resources spent on bereavement to be able to create this new system. All it does is to give them the power to recycle that money in whatever way they want, such that that reform should include this small change—that for 12 months after losing one’s husband, wife or civil partner a parent should not be forced back to work.
We should be clear that a decent society will not put bereaved children in the position of having lost one parent only to find that the other is not able to give them the level of care that they need at this crucial time. Many people in this House will know that losing a parent in childhood is a life-changing event: one never gets over it. We cannot protect children from that horror but when it happens, please let us at least say that we will support the remaining parent as best we can. It is clear that this House does not think that the Government have got this part of the Bill right. Amendments 2 and 19 give them the means and the incentive to go away and get this right. I urge the Minister to accept them.
Lord Freud
My Lords, losing a spouse is one of the most tragic circumstances that a person will have to endure and, as such, it has been recognised since the outset of the welfare system that the bereaved need some financial assistance. Bereavement benefits form a crucial part of state support but limited reforms over the years have led to a complex system, which has not kept pace with changes in the benefit system or wider changes in society. This legislation will address this. With a simple payment structure focusing support on the period immediately after the bereavement and a single contribution condition, the new bereavement support payment will be far more easily understood and claimed. It will mean that more people will benefit, particularly younger widows.
A claim to the new bereavement support payment is made by the surviving spouse or civil partner. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised those extremely tragic cases where not only is there one bereavement but the surviving spouse dies shortly afterwards. She is of course right that there can be no expectation that a claim is made by the surviving spouse in such circumstances. I take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that, as with the current benefits, there will be arrangements in place for claims to be made posthumously. Every year, the Department for Work and Pensions receives around 10 posthumous claims to bereavement benefits made on behalf of a bereaved spouse who has subsequently died. There are regulations to ensure that appropriate payment can be made in respect of these claims.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the noble Lord has misrepresented both my amendment and my speech. I said that many parents would welcome it, but that the decision on at which point within that 12 months they returned to the labour market lay with them, not with the local benefit office.
Lord Freud
The point I am trying to make is that it is far better to recognise that individual responses to grief vary. As a number of noble Lords have said, grief often does not manifest in behavioural and emotional challenges until months or even years down the line, as a child matures. That is why, under universal credit, advisers have the flexibility to personalise requirements at any point, responding as circumstances arise. Where parents are facing difficulties with school, childcare arrangements or other extenuating circumstances, advisers can limit or even lift requirements.
I recognise that the application of that flexibility depends on the ability of those advisers. While I feel that our advisers are able, it is important to ensure that they have the best guidance and training to deal with such difficult cases. That is why we are currently working with experts in the field including the Childhood Bereavement Network, the Children’s Society, Cruse Bereavement Care, WAY and Gingerbread, to ensure that guidance and learning clearly articulate how advisers can identify and support parents in these circumstances, including the particular circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to apply conditionality. Our advisory services are also being repositioned as a profession with a clear career path, accredited learning and ongoing professional development. The learning programme will ensure that advisers have up-to-date skills to deal with any claimant interaction and support them in making relevant and appropriate decisions on an individual basis.
That is the standing position. I now move to the more specific response that I wish to make following our discussions in Grand Committee, particularly in answer to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I recognise that there are circumstances in which children could be in considerable distress and in which it is clear that conditionality should not be applied and flexibility is essential. I do not, however, see such cases as being limited to bereavement. There may be other circumstances in which children need additional care—for instance, where a family is fleeing domestic violence.
I assure the noble Baroness that we are not looking for a measure to define “distress”. Indeed, we need to establish exactly what the expression means; we are using it as a shorthand and there may be a much better way of capturing the concept, which is one of the things that a review should do. We are looking to identify specific circumstances in which we could expect a child to be distressed, and in which they will therefore have additional needs that need to be recognised. Claimants would need to demonstrate only the circumstances they are in, not the fact of distress, which is, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, extraordinarily difficult to establish.
I therefore want to conduct a review as quickly possible, in order to embed any new rules in the regime before we take new claims to universal credit from families. That is why I propose to undertake the review myself. I would like, in practice, to conclude that review by June or so. I will report back to the House following that. I am not quite sure of what form that will take but we will find the right form nearer the time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry, but why? The noble Lord has already made the judgment on kinship parents. This is a permissive amendment, which he can draw on if needed. If he does not need it because of his review he does not need to deploy it. It is there as a safety net, so why is he asking the House to make it an either/or judgment?
Lord Freud
My Lords, this is not a permissive amendment. It makes a change to the conditionality regime for one element. If I need to look at how I do a review, I would have to look again at the specific context of doing this review.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry; I crave the indulgence of the House. Let me read the substance of Amendment 21:
“The Secretary of State may by regulation and within the overall budget for bereavement support payment exempt any widowed parent from work conditionality while in receipt of said payment”.
The Secretary of State “may” do that by regulation. As I said, the amendment is permissive. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not, perhaps, fully appreciate that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me make my point here. I will have to look again. As noble Lords know, a “may” in this context is a very substantial “may”. I will have to look again at the context in which I would want to do something such as this. I may very well want to do it, but I cannot make a commitment to have both at this stage. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am still slightly baffled by the less than satisfactory response of the Minister. Let me first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and my noble friend Lady Sherlock for their very powerful and moving speeches on something that really matters: trying to protect and support widowed parents for the first 12 months of their bereavement. I welcome the Minister’s offer of a review on distress. However, what he has suggested is so wide that I rather doubt—although I would be pleased to be proven wrong—that he will be able to turn this into effective policy.
I give one tiny example, which I was thinking of as the Minister spoke. He was going to extend this to the distress of cohabiting parents when one of them dies. It is not too far fetched to suggest to the House a situation where a woman was with the father of her child or children in a cohabiting relationship but they then separated. She then had a period of perhaps five or seven years with someone else, to whom the children really connected and related. Then she moved on to a new boyfriend—a new stepfather—for perhaps the past year. Could the Minister tell me which of those three would have to die—forgive the language—for her to be entitled to bereavement benefit under the proposal of distress? Is it the recent stepfather, over whom the children are not especially distressed but the mother is highly distressed; the long-term stepfather, who has helped to bring them up, to whom the children were committed and over whom they are distressed while she is less so; or their natural father, who is giving them financial support and they see regularly? Which is it? I suspect one cannot do what the Minister seeks to do.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the point for me. If we do these things piecemeal, we will not get the right answer. That is why my response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said to me in Grand Committee was to think that we need to look at this comprehensively. We need to get this issue right across the piece and understand how to incorporate it as a whole into our conditionality regime. That is the response that I am looking to do, not to sort it out on the Floor of the House where we simply do not have enough information to do it properly at this stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I make two points. First, we are not seeking to sort it out on the Floor of the House. I am seeking the consent of the House, if it is so minded to give it, to a permissive amendment, which does not commit the Government to anything they subsequently decide is inappropriate in the light of further research. The second point is that the Minister’s definition of distress is so wide that I genuinely believe, from my limited experience in Parliament, that he will find it very difficult indeed to turn it into deliverable policy. I am sure he is as aware as I am that it will end up depending on the discretion—he made this point himself—of local people in local benefits offices, such as the 23 year-old who will be interviewing the widowed parent. Is she numb? If so, does that mean she is coping or not caring sufficiently? Alternatively, is she voluble? Does that mean she is coping or not caring? He will have to peer into her soul and we should not go there.
The Minister says that he wants to help widowed parents to adjust, to,
“regain control of their lives”,
with tailored solutions. He is saying that the local benefits office, the 23 year-old, will decide. The 23-year old will turn her into his dependant, reliant on his judgment as to what she should do and what is best for her family. That is inappropriate and improper. You are making the adult back into a child and adding to her stress and distress. The Minister should not be going down that path. He will not be able to do it by clear policy; he will depend on discretion. Neither of those routes is satisfactory for a small and coherent group that we can easily define—that is, widowed parents with children following a bereavement.
The Minister is opposing a permissive amendment dealing with a small, specific group, which he can respond to exactly as he has already helped—and I am glad of it—kinship carers. He has allowed kinship carers 12 months off on work conditionality; he can do the same thing for this very specific group and make their work conditionality freedom align with the 12 months in which they are receiving bereavement benefit. After all, that is precisely why they have bereavement benefit in the first place. If they have it because they need support following their bereavement, at the same time they need the freedom from the additional pressure that the Minister’s work conditionality will ensure.
The Minister said that it was not quite either/or, but suggested that—
Lord Freud
My Lords, I just want to make the point that if you pick out particular groups and have legislation just for them, you end up with the kind of carbuncled benefit system that we are trying to escape from. I am determined to try to build a system that is coherent across the piece, and I want to look at all the situations to make sure that they are consistent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I understand the Minister’s support for grand schemes. We will see whether the grand scheme of universal credit, which I support, will deliver what he hopes that it does—and I hope it does. But here we are dealing with a situation in which we have kinship carers and widowed parents, and we may be talking subsequently about women experiencing distress in domestic abuse situations, and the Minister is trying to make something coherent. He is trying to fit them into one common mould, but he does not have to. He may come up with appropriate and different solutions for different groups because, as he himself said in his reply, every family is different and may need different help. This amendment would allow him to do precisely that.
The amendment does not cut across any review in any way, any more than his 12-month provision for kinship carers does. It seeks only to protect a small, identifiable and precise group from additional pressures of work conditionality at no cost at all and at a time when they and their children are most deeply distressed. I do not think that they should be put on the back burner for a review that may or may not deliver what I hope the House will think is the right path to take. If the review goes ahead and the Minister does not need the amendment, as it is permissive, he does not need to draw on it. If his review falters, which I think it will because he is asking too much of it, the amendment would give protection to some of the most vulnerable people in our country at the time of their deepest grief.
It is very simple. The amendment is permissive but says that we recognise the situation of widows and widowed parents and will give them, under the new system, one year of bereavement benefits and payments. This amendment asks for that one year, which we recognise is the period of most grief and distress, and that we should also not apply the pressure of work conditionality. This House has always looked out for widows and children, and I am asking the House to do it again today. The amendment is permissive and cost-free, and the Minister can build on it if he wishes to do the review. It is just a small safety net of help for grieving children and their grieving parent. I beg your Lordships to protect them tonight. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Pensions Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hollis has raised some significant questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers. This amendment follows an ultimately rather unsatisfactory discussion we had in Committee during which my noble friends Lord McKenzie and Lady Hollis, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others tried valiantly to get the Minister to explain exactly when somebody would receive a communication from DWP to warn them that the state pension they would get in future would not be the same as what they might have expected. I went back and reread the record. I think the answer we got was that they would get a statement if or when they asked for it and then normally only digitally. The Minister kindly arranged for officials to explain their communications strategy to Peers, and I am genuinely grateful for that. However I think it is fair to say that the exercise did not entirely allay our fears or perhaps fill out all the gaps in our knowledge. I hope the Minister is looking forward to finding a consultancy fee for my noble friend Lady Hollis for her contribution to what will doubtless be the next mailshot from the department.
In Committee I raised comments that had been made during the Select Committee inquiry and elsewhere from quite a wide variety of bodies about this subject. It is worth highlighting a couple. Citizens Advice has been stressing that considerable complexity inevitably remains in the system because of the transitional provisions. It says that,
“a sustained communications programme could improve outcomes, manage expectations, minimise misinformation, promote action on NI contributions, and support personal saving for retirement”.
That last point is one made by my noble friend Lady Turner. The Association of British Insurers had also stressed that adequate communication was essential because it was important that people did not feel unclear about how much they would receive, and it should be clear that they would need to save. That is a crucial drive behind all of these reforms and the Labour reforms that preceded them. People need to understand what they are going to get to make sure they save enough for their retirement.
The Select Committee certainly found that there was a lot of confusion out there. Many people thought that from now everybody would get £144 a week instead of the current state pension. Many people thought that all means-testing would disappear and that if they would have got more than £144 now that they would lose that in future. The committee stressed how important it was that people have full information about their future entitlement.
I reiterate three simple questions which I raised in Committee; they did not get answered at the time but I think the Minister has had an opportunity since then to reflect on them. First, how and when do the Government propose to contact people to tell them of the changes to their entitlement? Secondly, at what point will the Government contact people who have previously requested and received a pension statement to warn them that it may no longer be accurate? Finally, in setting up a communications campaign on this new scheme, what outcomes are the Government seeking and how will they measure them? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the single-tier pension reforms are designed to simplify the current state pension system, to make it easier for people to understand what they will get from the state in retirement. More so than for other reforms, therefore, communication is critical to success, so I certainly share the interest that noble Lords have shown in this issue. Effective communication requires both the right message and the right channel for delivering that message. This forms the basis for our communication strategy to support these reforms, a summary of which I circulated to noble Lords this morning and which will be placed in the Library.
We will deliver a phased approach to our communications, building from Royal Assent towards the implementation of the reforms and beyond. This will allow us to provide accurate and up-to-date information as quickly as possible before we issue more tailored communications through a range of channels to reach all our audience groups.
State pension statements will remain a key communication with future pensioners and will be an important vehicle for helping individuals understand how they are affected by the reforms. The introduction of these reforms gives us the opportunity to radically transform the way we currently provide this statement service. Our ultimate vision is to provide an online system that is integrated with HMRC’s national insurance data, enabling people to access this information at a time to suit them and in a way that allows them to model the impact of gaining further qualifying years.
In Committee I said that we would provide statements that reflect the single-tier rules once we have the new IT in place and individuals’ NI contribution records are complete up to and including the 2015-16 tax year. Prior to April 2016 our plan was to continue to provide statements based on the current rules accompanied by additional information on the single-tier changes to those affected by the reforms. However, we believe there is trade-off in terms of providing information we have available based on current system amounts while trying to minimise the distribution of information that is potentially misleading or simply begs further questions. Noble Lords may wish to note that we are therefore currently reviewing the information we can provide to customers prior to April 2016 to ensure that it is as accurate and helpful as possible. We will make a decision on this by the end of March when we will make our plans more widely known through discussions with our stakeholders and within our broader communication materials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked when we might contact previous recipients who will be affected by the changes. We will consider this to be part of the process. It is important to note that our data retention rules mean that our statement IT systems hold only a limited number of historic requests going back a maximum of 18 months, and therefore we cannot contact all previous statement recipients. The statements make it clear that the estimates they provide are based on the current rules and may change if individual circumstances alter or the law changes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Sherlock for their contributions. I understand that the Minister is as committed as could reasonably be expected to trying to ensure that people are aware of and fully knowledgeable about their entitlements. I accept and absolutely understand that there is considerable virtue in having an evidence-based policy by building it up on the results of research into the most effective lines of communication. I also agree that a variety of responses may be wanted, including press, mailings and online, but I have to say that I would worry if it was largely dependent on online information, given what we know about many people’s recalcitrance over using online facilities as UC is rolled out. It may be that it is a generational thing and that over the next decade to 20 years the recalcitrance begins to disappear, particularly if places such as Norfolk end up actually having access to broadband.
My difficulty is that the Minister has a policy premised on the fact that those who know that they do not know will make the inquiry. The problem is around those who do not know that they do not know, and I am not confident that he has in place a strategy to make them aware of it. In the past, the people who were most vulnerable would have been married women who had been in and out of the labour market according to their caring responsibilities. They had a very straightforward safety net by the fact that they could have 60% of the husband’s pension as a baseline, and only if their own contributions exceeded that, as increasingly they have begun to do, would they draw on their own contributions. That is no longer the case. So the 60% married women’s pension is being withdrawn without, as far as I can see, ensuring that those women know, first, that they are losing what they would have counted on in the past and which is common knowledge, and secondly, what other benefits—or credits, I should say—they may be entitled to claim because that information is not being sent out to them in lieu.
I think that the Minister has a problem here. We are on the same side and I fully accept that he wants to make sure that people are aware of this, but I do not think he really understands what happens when the safety net of the married women’s dependency pension which has existed for 50-odd years is pulled away and women are told that they are on their own. He does not actually know, understand or appreciate what it may be like to find the headspace, resources and capacity to change behaviour in order to build up a pension. I am sure that this is not a gender point, but I really do not think that the Minister understands where women like that may be coming from. In the past, as the Minister will know, we had deficiency notices under NIRS 2. They told you whether you had incomplete NI records. When the computer, on which the Minister is relying so heavily, toppled over in the late 1990s or thereabouts and we could not get it back on its feet for several years, we increasingly lengthened the period during which someone could buy back their NICs or make contributions accordingly to cover the lack of deficiency notices. We were willing to do it then for everybody on an annual basis, as far as I recall, before the computer toppled over, yet the Minister is reluctant to go back to that. I understand the point about mailings and so on, but at the very least I press the Minister to identify in his research the at-risk group. For my money, the at-risk group are women, particularly married women, who had relied on the 60% married women’s pension, who were perhaps unaware in the past of the credits they could have claimed, including carer’s credits, and they are not on the list.
I would like some assurance from the Minister—it could just be a nod if he likes—that the at-risk group in particular can be identified. At 65 or 66, they could find themselves on their own with an incomplete state pension and it is too late to do anything about it because we have failed to keep nudging them. If the Minister could give me that assurance, I would be content.
Lord Freud
I would be very comfortable giving the noble Baroness that assurance. Clearly, a generalised mailing out is exactly what we are concerned about. The evidence is that people will get official-looking letters which they do not look at. We have to find a way of getting to the most vulnerable groups, who may take a Rumsfeldian attitude—they do not know what they do not know—and we have to find a way through that. Therefore, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. I think we are basically agreed around this Chamber about the need to get the communication right, but we need to do the research. There is no point in us making it up without that knowledge.
Lord Freud
“( ) Where regulations under section 22(5ZA) of the Contributions and Benefits Act have the effect that a person is credited, on or after 6 April 2016, with earnings or contributions for a tax year starting before that date, the earnings or contributions are to be treated for the purposes of calculating the rate under this paragraph as having been credited before 6 April 2016.”
Lord Freud
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke movingly of the case of a service wife. Her husband, a commanding officer, was stationed in Belize. Travelling abroad with him meant she sacrificed a successful legal career in the UK, but she also gave up the ability to build up her state pension. It gives me great pleasure today to be able to present a means to redress this situation. I need to acknowledge, alongside the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, those of the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Browne, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her forensic analysis of this issue and her persistence in seeking a remedy for this group.
This amendment signals our determination to act. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow service spouses and civil partners, due to reach state pension age from 6 April 2016, to apply for national insurance credits for periods during which they accompanied their partner on a posting outside the UK. The regulations will make provision to allow credits for periods between 1975-76 and 2010. This will ensure that, even in the rare circumstances that someone has spent their entire working life accompanying their spouse abroad, they will still be able to build the 35-year contribution record needed for the full single tier.
This builds on this Government’s commitment, set out in the Armed Forces covenant, to remove disadvantages that the Armed Forces community may face in comparison to other citizens, and to recognise sacrifices made. We continue to work on the finer details of the scheme, which will be set out in regulations. This will include the manner in which applications will need to be made and the precise start date. From information supplied by the Ministry of Defence, we estimate that up to 20,000 individuals could have a higher single tier pension from these credits.
Key to the impact of these amendments will be how effectively they are communicated. We recognise the importance of alerting people to the scheme to maximise take-up, and this will be incorporated into our wider single tier communications strategy. The MoD also anticipates using the ex-service communities’ charitable network and the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency communication channels. This amendment is also grouped with a small number of technical, tidying-up amendments to Schedules 1 and 12. These are all consequential on either Amendment 9 or provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
In summary, those who support our armed services abroad should not be penalised. The prospective earnings credit introduced in 2010 helped to ensure that single- tier pensioners in the circumstances I have discussed could build entitlement to state pension for years after 2010, but not before. These amendments address this and ensure that people who have accompanied their spouse or civil partner on overseas postings are not unjustifiably disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, although we gave this a fairly good airing in Committee, I confess that I do not yet feel that I properly understand the nature of the Government’s objections to the taking of lump sums. My noble friend Lady Hollis explained her case for this, and there is no doubt that we have a crisis of savings in this country. Too many people do not have a safety net for a rainy day, and British households generally do not have enough money in savings. That amount has been falling in recent years—unsurprisingly, given the pressures on the cost of living. The case made by my noble friend about why people might need access to a lump sum deserves an answer from the Minister. She described when and why the option was introduced and what people might use it for.
However, having gone carefully over the record and the correspondence since, I did not get answers to some of the questions which I put to the Minister in Committee. Those answers would help me because I would like to understand two things. First, are the Government confident that they have worked through who will be affected by this, what the impact will be and what the alternatives are? Secondly, can they explain clearly why they are doing it? On the first point—and I did ask this—we know that 75% of those who are deferring are women, but do we know why?
My noble friend suggested in Committee that those people are waiting until their partner retires to claim their pensions. Have the Government been able to confirm whether that is why they are deferring, or are they deferring because they are still working and have not saved enough to feel able to retire? What do we know about the wealth of those who are deferring their pensions? These questions matter because they would go to the points made by my noble friend Lady Hollis about whether people without savings are going to end up accessing other forms of credit, which we would not want them to do as they may be problematic.
Most of all, I would like to understand what the Government’s objection is. We have had a few arguments made: the argument of simplicity was made and has been pretty well dispatched, so I will not revisit it. Another argument raised was that significant numbers of people deferring and claiming a lump sum are living overseas. However, we know from the data given to us that more than three-quarters of those people are living in the UK, so that is probably not the issue. Is it the administrative burden? Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether it is that or simply the cost.
If it is the cost, I understand that. If the Government’s argument is that the costs are significant, the House, I am sure, will listen carefully. However, it would be helpful at this point if the Minister could simply come out and say whether he would like to do this but cannot afford it or whether the Government think for some reason that it is a bad idea, in which case my noble friend Lady Hollis has laid down a strong challenge which the Minister really should answer.
Lord Freud
My Lords, in designing the single-tier reforms our overriding aim has been to deliver a flat-rate pension above the basic level of the means test without increasing spending, and to do so in a way that recognises people’s contributions under the current system. This is not easy to do and it involves difficult trade-offs. Some elements of the transition necessarily generate costs in the early years, particularly the “better of” calculation, which means that people with low amounts of additional state pension, such as carers, receive a boost. There is also the fact that those with high amounts of additional state pension, which take them over the full amount of the single-tier pension, are able to keep the surplus as a protected payment. Nevertheless, we have been able to stay within 1% of projected expenditure until 2040, which is fair to current pensioners and to future taxpayers.
In answer to the blunt question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, removal of the lump sum option for those who defer their state pension has played a key role in flattening expenditure. The early-year savings that this delivers have been ploughed back into the single-tier design. We are, however, still keen to preserve some flexibility for single-tier pensioners who, by choice or accident, claim after they reach state pension age, so people will still be able to build up an increase to their state pension that is paid on top of their single-tier entitlement for the rest of their lives. As discussed in Grand Committee, there remains the option of backdating a claim for a single-tier pension. By backdating their claim to a state pension, someone who has delayed claiming for whatever reason—either unintentionally or as part of a planned retirement—will be able to get up to 12 months’ arrears when they make their claim for a pension. This would provide someone who has qualified for the maximum weekly amount of £144 with arrears of almost £7,500 at 2012-13 prices.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can the Minister help me with a technical point? With arrears, is the assumption that interest will be paid on the deferred money?
Lord Freud
What happens is that the amount is repegged to the year in which it is taken. If, for instance, someone’s delay in claiming exceeded a year, they would get an increment on top of the single-tier entitlement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry but I still do not understand. This is a very simple point. At the end of the year in which you have not drawn your pension, do you get the equivalent of a return on capital—in other words, an interest payment—over and beyond the direct addition of 12 months of state pension?
Lord Freud
No, you do not get interest on arrears, but let me take the example of someone who delays claiming the maximum amount for two years and wants to backdate their claim for the 12 months. If we take the £144 example, they would get an increment of around £7.50 to £8 a week, depending on the value of the uprating, which would be added to their weekly entitlement. It would also include the calculation of arrears due to them for the backdated period. That would boost the overall arrears payment to more than £8,000, so that is the mechanism through which the delay works.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about why women in particular are deferring, one of the main reasons is that women have a lower state pension age than men, although of course the reasons will vary with individual circumstances. I am loath to go too deeply into the simplicity argument because we will have a row which will go on for ever. However, to conflate complexity with the number of extra pages in a particular pamphlet is, bluntly, a somewhat bizarre argument. The difficulty for individuals is in making the decision on what option is best for them in the longer term and what is best for their surviving spouse.
Lord Freud
I must confess that I have not counted up the pages or gone through it in detail. I suspect that I have gone through it but I cannot remember it and have not done the counting job on pages that clearly I should have. I knew that I should not have said this. However, I am not going to back down and I will stay with my “bizarre” comment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Is this evidence-based policy? The Minister has not read it but it is “bizarre”.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am most grateful for having a superb staff, some of whom have not only read the document but written it, so I am confident in the statement that I have just made.
The removal of the lump sum is not because we do not trust people; in fact, it is quite the opposite. We believe that people can make savings decisions for themselves. If they can afford not to claim the state pension, they can choose to save it.
Let me go to the figures on pensioner capital. We do not recognise the figures quoted by the noble Baroness. The figures I can quote—which are not averages, which I know the noble Baroness would scorn—are that almost three-quarters of the pensioner population already have more than £5,000 in capital, and more than half of all pensioners have more than £12,500 in net wealth.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Minister challenges my figures. Is that households or individual pensioners?
Lord Freud
I am not sure why that was the point precisely, but those are the figures I have. The proposed amendment would allow for regulations to introduce a lump-sum payment into the new scheme. That would bring costs forward and would undermine the cost neutrality of the single-tier package, as well as the simplification.
Bringing costs forward may sound like a technical concern, but the timing of expenditure is vital. Without making offsetting savings elsewhere in the single-tier package, Governments in the early years of single tier would be forced to divert more spending towards the state pension system than under the current scheme, which means more government borrowing for future generations to shoulder, or less to spend on today’s priorities. We simply do not believe it is right to make this trade-off to enhance the personal financial management options for a relatively small group of people who do not need to draw the income from their state pension and are therefore able to exercise their option to defer.
We understand that a one-off payment can help people build up capital, and the backdating option can provide flexibility in this respect. However, we question whether there is a widespread problem of low capital for those in retirement. Introducing a lump sum would require us to make alternative savings from elsewhere in the single-tier package, most likely by reducing coverage. We simply cannot agree to that, and so I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, that was a very interesting reply. I only wish we were in Committee so we could show up more of the thinness of the Minister’s reply. For somebody who is so evidence-based—which is something I greatly respect about the Minister—he was dismissing it rather wildly out of hand.
The Minister pushed the argument that this is about cost and said that this removal played a key role in “containing expenditure”. That is very interesting. I had a discussion with his right honourable friend something like three weeks ago on precisely this point. He assured me most emphatically and vigorously—I am sure he would confirm the conversation, and there were witnesses—that this had nothing to do with cost but was only about simplicity. May I at least suggest that the Minister talks to his right honourable friend and agrees a common line on this? At the moment, one says it is all about cost and the other says it is nothing to do with cost but is all about simplicity. I suspect that the Minister in our House is probably correct about the cost argument, but that is not the position presented by the Minister responsible for pensions, who assured me emphatically to the contrary.
As to the point about simplicity, frankly, it is absurd. I checked my pages again. Pages 11 to 17 are a table showing the cost value of a lump sum compared with increments, and pages 26 to 29 are on taxing the lump sum. That makes 11 pages in total, and probably only three of those, on taxing the lump sum, would be regarded as any form of challenge beyond a reading age of seven and a quarter—so the Minister’s argument about simplicity is frankly absurd, patronising, condescending, lacking evidence and without any factual basis whatever. Frankly, we expect rather better from the Minister.
As for pensioner savings, as I suspected, the difference between us is that my figures are based on individuals, and I stand by them, and his figures are based on households, which does not help the argument very much. He seems to think that 64,000 people denied a lump sum is such a small number that we do not need to bother about them. It is three times the number of service spouses, if I remember correctly, that he is going to help through the military covenant, and no one said they were too small a number to bother about—yet the figure for a lump sum possibility which is three times larger is too trivial to be worth troubling ourselves with.
Frankly, I do not think the Minister believes a word of his argument. I think he does believe his argument about cost, but I do not think he believes anything else about it. He knows and understands that pensioners need savings. He knows that this may be a way for those who take this lump sum to exercise that choice. He knows that it is not difficult to understand. It could not be simpler. Do you want to take this two years’ worth of pension as a lump sum or do you want to add it on? If you are taking away the increment, that would be complicated to explain. A lump sum is the easier and simpler of the two options, and that is the one the Minister is taking away, to the pain of the individual who I calculate will reach their cross-over point—I asked the Minister for this figure, but it has never come to me—at about 87: I stand to be corrected if the Minister thinks I am wrong.
We are left with backdating—fine. All I can hope, and I am sure others do as well, is that we will keep up the pressure on Ministers to ensure that people are aware that they can take their pension lump sum in arrears, as a form of saving, after 12 months and get £7,500 or £8,000 for that sum, which will still keep them below any risk that other benefits, if they are necessary, including housing benefit, will be lost.
I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply, and I think that the Minister is disappointed by the Minister’s reply. He knows that it does not stand up to a scrap of scrutiny—not one scrap—but there is nothing much we are going to do about it at this time of night, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pensions Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 5, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 6 and 7, Schedules 3 and 4, Clauses 8 and 9, Schedule 5, Clauses 10 and 11, Schedule 6, Clause 12, Schedule 7, Clause 13, Schedules 8 and 9, Clause 14, Schedule 10, Clause 15, Schedule 11, Clauses 16 to 23, Schedule 12, Clause 24, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 25, Schedule 15, Clauses 26 to 31, Schedule 16, Clauses 32 and 33, Schedule 17, Clauses 34 to 43, Schedule 18, Clauses 44 and 45, Schedule 19, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 20, Clauses 50 to 56.
Child Support Fees Regulations 2014
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 December 2013 be approved.
Relevant documents: 16th and 18th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd and 27th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.
Employment: Young People
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Byford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Youth Contract in helping young people into employment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the Youth Contract builds on the support already available from Jobcentre Plus to help young people get back into work. Our approach is working. The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance has fallen for the 19th consecutive month.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, that is indeed good news. Does my noble friend recognise the contribution that voluntary youth organisations, particularly armed services cadet forces, play in the development of young people and in preparing them for the work ahead? Can he tell us what the assessment is of long-term youth unemployment in this country?
Lord Freud
My Lords, one of the most serious problems that we inherited was around long-term youth unemployment; that was structural rather than cyclical. The measures that we have been taking are to get the education and training base for youngsters right. As I have told noble Lords in the past, I thought that the Alison Wolf report on dealing with this issue was most remarkable. We are pushing that through at every level.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many young people in the north-east have benefited from the measures that the Government have put in place to tackle youth unemployment?
Lord Freud
In the north-east, the number of youngsters—those under 24 years old—who have been claiming as unemployed has gone down by 27%; that is by 7,500 to a figure of 20,000. One of the interesting things about the unemployment figures is how broadly based they have been. If you take the four most northern regions of the country—the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, and Scotland—they have in combination reduced their claimant count by 43,000 youngsters to 118,000. That is, interestingly, rather more than London and the south-east.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
The Minister will recognise that there are far more self-employed journeymen and women than there used to be. Are the jobcentres targeting these self-employed people to take on apprentices?
Lord Freud
The apprenticeship is one of the most valuable ways of getting youngsters into the workforce. Clearly, sole traders are a valuable resource for that. One of the most interesting projects is called Working Rite, which pairs up youngsters with sole traders. That is something that we encourage.
Looking at the number of apprenticeships as a whole, in the three years since the election we have had nearly 1 million apprenticeships of people under 25. That is very encouraging; it is 50% higher than the equivalent three years beforehand.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the cost of youth unemployment today is, annually, £4.8 billion. If you allow for lost output, it is £10 billion. Should not the target for every school in the country be that when youngsters leave at 16 or 18 they either get a job, a higher apprenticeship, an advanced apprenticeship, go on to college to do A-levels or go to university? That is a target that university technical colleges have, and it is a target that is met.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. There are only four things one can do to help youngsters into the workforce: directly get them a job; training and education; apprenticeships; or work experience, which is a stepping stone. That is what Alison Wolf told us, and that is what the Government are aiming to do.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Minister said that the Government inherited high long-term youth unemployment from the Opposition. However, the ONS publication Labour Market Statistics shows that long-term unemployment for 18-24 year-olds is 232,000. The same data set shows that in the period spanning the last election it was only 188,000. Labour has made it very clear that we would guarantee a job for every young person out of work for more than a year and make them take it. What will the Government do?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the figures the noble Baroness quoted are very distorted by the training allowances, which got people off the long-term measure. I will not go into a long song and dance about it, but those figures were the result of a very distorted comparison. I have quoted the real figures—the ones that matter—to this House on a regular basis. When you look at youngsters who are both workless and outside full-time education, that figure rose through the longest boom we have seen in our history because of structural inability to get those youngsters into the workforce. There was neither adequate education nor routes into the workforce. We are turning those figures round—and they are the real figures.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
May I ask the Minister how we monitor the success of these training schemes and apprenticeships? How many are effective in providing long-term, standard employment when their training or term of apprenticeship comes to an end?
Lord Freud
My Lords, it is vital that we have routes that lead into long-term, sustained employment and into being part of the economic life of the country. It is a bit early to look at the apprenticeship figures yet, because they are long term, but if you look at the work experience figures, nearly half the people on work experience were off benefits 21 weeks after starting a placement. That is more or less the kind of figure we saw with the Future Jobs Fund. The difference is that this work experience cost one-20th of what the Future Jobs Fund cost the previous Government.
Child Support Fees Regulations 2014
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do consider the Child Support Fees Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd and 27th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the draft Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014.
These regulations were laid before both Houses on 2 December 2013. They enable the department to charge application, collection and enforcement fees for the statutory child maintenance scheme introduced in 2012, which is delivered by the Child Maintenance Service. They also make provision for the department to close cases on the 1993 and 2003 schemes delivered by the CSA, and specify the means by which existing clients must exercise their choice to make an application to the 2012 statutory maintenance scheme. I am satisfied that these instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Before addressing the regulations in detail, I should emphasise that the programme of reform began in 2006 when Sir David Henshaw delivered an independent report on the future of child maintenance. In his report, Sir David recommended stopping using the CSA as a default option for parents, and introducing charges to provide both parents with an incentive to collaborate. Since then, as part of our reform programme, we have ended compulsion on parents on benefits to apply to the CSA, secured the powers to introduce a new child maintenance system and introduced a full disregard of child maintenance for the purpose of assessing benefit entitlement from 2010.
All these actions have been about helping parents to collaborate in the best interests of their children and to reduce levels of conflict between parents after a separation. This is because evidence suggests that children do better when their parents work together. We are taking a twin approach to increasing the number of parents who work together after a separation to agree child maintenance rather than relying on state intervention. First, we are supporting them to work together on not only child maintenance but the whole range of issues faced following a separation. Secondly, we are incentivising them to think twice about whether they could set up a more collaborative family-based child maintenance arrangement without automatically turning to the statutory scheme.
We are therefore reforming the child maintenance landscape to put collaboration and family-based arrangements at the centre. We are investing £14 million in the Help and Support for Separated Families initiative, directing parents to the support they need during and after separation. For those unable to make family-based arrangements, the new, faster, more efficient 2012 statutory scheme, delivered by the Child Maintenance Service, will be there. The 2012 scheme has a built-in HMRC interface.
We opened the 2012 scheme using a pathfinder approach in December 2012 and, following assurance that the processes, procedures and client interfaces were working well, we opened the scheme to all applicants on 25 November 2013. Those making an application to the statutory scheme will be invited to enter into a discussion with the Child Maintenance Options service, which provides free, impartial information and support on the various ways to set up maintenance arrangements. This conversation gives parents the information they need to consider what is the best arrangement for them.
We propose to introduce fees for those wishing to apply to the 2012 scheme and for continuing to use it. Sir David Henshaw’s report recommended this as a balanced incentive. His argument was that people are more likely to consider whether a service is necessary for them if a charge is applied for it.
Evidence shows that more than half of parents with care using the Child Support Agency could reach their own family-based arrangements with the right support. We launched a consultation on the draft Child Support Fees Regulations 2013 and the draft Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2013 to seek feedback on our proposals, and published the Government’s response in November 2013.
We listened carefully to the feedback and reduced the proposed application fee from £100 to £20. Vulnerable applicants who declare that they have experienced an incident of domestic violence or abuse and have reported it to one of the organisations named in the guidance referred to in the regulations will be exempt from paying the application fee. Those under 19 years of age will also be exempt.
We have reduced the parent with care collection fee from the proposed “7 to 12%” to 4%. By reducing the fee to 4%, we have shifted the balance in favour of the parent with care even further so that it stands in a one-to-five relationship with the 20% non-resident parent fee. It is also charged only on money actually collected. It is the non-resident parent who faces by far the highest charges, reflecting the fact that they have greater control over whether they use the collection service. We believe that both parents should make a financial contribution towards the cost of the service. The proposed fees will bring in revenue of £170 million per year. This is a financial contribution towards the cost of the service, which remains heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
We wanted to ensure that there was provision to enable parents who need to use the statutory scheme to avoid ongoing collection fees. We have therefore introduced Direct Pay. Direct Pay is where the Child Maintenance Service calculates the amount payable and the non-resident parent makes payments directly to the parent with care. Direct Pay will provide a way for parents to access the statutory service in a way that can help rebuild trust between them. We are also proposing enforcement charges for non-resident parents to encourage them to comply with their commitments and to help to offset the cost of administrative action to enforce compliance. The current system offers no financial incentive for non-resident parents to pay in full and on time.
There are currently three statutory schemes in operation: the 1993 and 2003 schemes, delivered by the CSA, and the new 2012 scheme, delivered by the Child Maintenance Service. We propose that cases will close on the 1993 and 2003 statutory schemes. We considered the responses to the consultation on these regulations and have altered our initial approach.
The main change is the order in which cases are selected for closure. The details of this order are included in the scheme that accompanies these regulations. We will divide the caseload into five segments and close them sequentially. To summarise: the first cases to be closed are those where the non-resident parent is assessed to pay a nil amount, followed by those where the non-resident parent is non-compliant. The next cases to be closed will be those handled off the system, followed by the remaining compliant cases.
The final group of cases to be selected will be those where there is an enforced method of payment in place, or legal enforcement action ongoing. Non-resident parents in this category will be invited to undergo a positive test for compliance. They will be required to demonstrate their ability to pay voluntarily for a period of six months. This will inform the department’s decision as to whether they should be allowed to pay the parent with care directly, and avoid collection fees, if an application is made to the 2012 scheme.
This programme of reforms aims to promote collaboration between separated parents in order to ensure that their children achieve the best outcomes in life. We have consulted on both the fees and the case closure proposals, changing our initial proposals on fees and the sequence in which cases will close. I have held two briefing sessions in the House of Lords with the aim of keeping noble Lords fully informed on the reform programme.
I understand that introducing fees to encourage collaboration is a significant change, but emphasise that under Section 141 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 we have committed to reviewing the effect of the fees regulations within 30 months of their coming into force, and to laying a report about the conclusions of that review before Parliament.
I spoke earlier of the careful way in which we introduced the 2012 scheme. We will continue with this approach, and will not introduce fees or begin the process of closing cases on the 1993 and 2003 schemes until we are confident that the 2012 scheme is working well. We anticipate that this will be in the summer. Those on existing child maintenance schemes will have already been told about case closure and the introduction of the charging of fees. We will not begin charging collection fees until six weeks after the regulations come into force, so anyone affected will have plenty of notice about when the collection changes will begin to affect them personally. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
I thank noble Lords for a set of very interesting contributions to this debate. It is clear that a lot of thought has gone into this area and it has provided a very constructive approach, not just today but over a considerable time. I therefore need to respond to as many of those issues as I can.
As I said initially, and as the statement read out by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay confirmed, we have consulted on these two sets of regulations and taken views into account. We have changed our initial proposals on fees and on the sequence in which cases will close.
I want to reflect initially on the contributions that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has made to the development of these policies. He has made a series of suggestions, both publicly and privately to us, aimed at improving the scheme and helping children. We have listened very carefully to his representations and taken action to reduce the strain on the parent with care. Although my noble and learned friend has made clear his view that the balance is still tilted towards the taxpayer at the expense of the parent with care, I hope that there is agreement that this is a question of striking the right balance and that it is appropriate that we do that by considering actual behaviour.
First, as a result of the consultation, we have amended our proposals for case closure by putting back those cases where parents within the statutory service have most to lose. We have put to the end of the case closure process those cases where money is flowing, which often follows hard-fought compliance, and the flow is maintained only by enforced collections. We have done this to ensure that money keeps flowing and compliance continues. These cases are most likely to fall into the category that my noble and learned friend is most concerned about, where parents with care find themselves unable to establish workable direct payment arrangements regardless of their willingness to do so.
Secondly, the 30-month review allows us to consider actual behaviour, to check that the impact of the reforms is as expected and to provide an indication of whether there are any unintended consequences for clients or the taxpayer. We intend to evaluate the overall impact of the child maintenance reforms in wider society, including the impact on overall maintenance outcomes. Our approach to the review is to use existing survey and administrative data sources where possible, combining these with internally and externally commissioned quantitative and qualitative research where necessary.
Our aim is that the child maintenance system in Great Britain should work better. We are going to focus on the impact on children of these changes. A key criterion for success of our reforms, which will be tested in the 30-month review, would be to increase the number of children benefiting from maintenance. Our estimates suggest that this number should rise, and we look forward to having this confirmed by the review—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was particularly interested in. If there are fewer children receiving child maintenance as a result of our charging regime, this will be made clear by the 30-month review and we could consider what changes might be required. By that time, we will know how people will behave and refinements to the system, along the lines that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has recommended to us in the past—in other words, segmenting the caseload into “can make direct pay arrangements” and “cannot make direct pay arrangements”—can be considered on a more informed basis. To introduce this complexity at this stage would add delay to bringing the benefits of the new system to parents and further complicate the Child Maintenance Service’s processes.
Pressing ahead with the reforms will mean that more children will be better off, as our estimates suggest that there will be an increase in the proportion of positive outcomes for clients on the statutory scheme. This is due to more availability of data and more updating of maintenance liabilities, together with a significant increase in the number of effective family-based arrangements. In the statutory scheme, the effect of the annual review coupled with direct interfaces with Jobcentre Plus and HMRC should mean that in future fewer cases are nil-assessed, meaning that more money could flow. We estimate that the percentage of nil-assessed cases will fall from the current 23% to around 6% of all arrangements in the longer term; I hope that this answers the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Over the 20-year period considered in the impact assessment published in 2013, including case closure, charging and the overall reform package, the assessment consistently gives a higher proportion of effective arrangements for parents who would have used or will use the statutory scheme than if the 2012 scheme was introduced on its own. As noble Lords have pointed out, we estimate that these reforms are likely to increase the proportion of effective arrangements from 60% to 70%.
There were a large number of questions, and I will try to go through as many as I possibly can. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked how we will know if the arrangements are working for parents. We will be using data from the Understanding Society longitudinal study to assess progress on family-based arrangements across the whole population. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also mentioned the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. This was responded to by the Minister for Pensions subsequently and that response has now been published.
Baroness Sherlock
I thank the Minister for going through all those questions—I am very grateful. I still have a couple which perhaps he missed out.
The Minister has explained to us that the Government believe that there will be more children in receipt of maintenance and more effective arrangements. However, he did not pick up on the amount of money that will change hands. For example, it would be perfectly possible for someone who was currently getting the full statutory amount through the statutory system to have in future a family-based arrangement in which they agree to take half of that amount to keep each other happy. Will the Government also be monitoring, and set a target for, the amount of child maintenance that is changing hands, and will they monitor in particular whether the amounts for individual families go down? In other words, one could see a change in the mean—by, for example, people who are currently nil-assessed joining the system—but that might disguise a fall in other cases. How well would that be monitored?
I think that I asked a question about the media campaign that Steve Webb had promised in early 2014. Does the Minister have any information on that?
There is a piece of nuance for which I apologise from this side as a pedant. On the question of domestic violence, the Minister said that he is confident that a non-geographic option will be available. Could he reassure the Committee that where domestic violence is alleged or admitted, a parent with care will not be required to accept direct pay unless and until such a scheme is available to them?
Lastly, I want to be sure that I understood his question about enforcement and HMRC. I think that he is saying that it will become more difficult for a parent with care to raise the question of where they believe earnings have been underdeclared. HMRC may deal with the general question of whether enough tax has been paid but at the moment, as I understand it, and I would be grateful if he would tell me whether or not I am right, a parent with care can go to the CSA with evidence showing that the non-resident parent has higher income than has been declared to the CSA—for example, if the lifestyle in terms of a house, a car or money spent would not appear to tally with the relatively small amount of income declared—and it can investigate and address that. Is he saying that that will not happen unless HMRC decides in general terms to conduct a tax investigation?
Lord Freud
On the question of the amount of maintenance, our estimate at this stage is that more children will get maintenance. That is what I have said. How much that maintenance is in money terms is less clear at this stage. It is one of the things that we will find out. I need to remind noble Lords that assistance may take many forms to children—more shared care—so the question is not just about money. It is about the level of support. That is an area that we will be looking at closely.
On bank accounts, the parent with care will be able to dictate to which account the non-resident parent must pay. If that fails to happen, it will result in a return to the collection service, which I think in practice deals with the noble Baroness’s question.
At the moment, the CSA gets a complaint from the parent with care. The place where it goes to check is HMRC. That main checking area becomes irrelevant when there is a direct feed. Where she is suspicious—it is a suspicion—of, effectively, tax fraud, that is what we are talking about.
Baroness Sherlock
So the CSA does no investigating of its own? I am sorry; I must have misunderstood that point.
Lord Freud
No. Currently the CSA checks with HMRC. As now, it will be able to provide information to support its suspicions that all might not be well. This is a difficult issue more generally.
On the question about the campaign, we are planning a media campaign using social media and paid-for channels such as radio. We are still finalising those details. The intention is to raise awareness of case closure and to promote parental responsibility. We will get more details of that out in coming months.
With all the issues dealt with—perhaps not to everyone’s absolute satisfaction—I will commit to continuing to provide transparency in the delivery of this programme of reforms. We published a strategy for the publication of information about the 2012 scheme on 18 July last year. We plan to release official statistics once we are assured of the appropriate quality of the data; we expect this to be after April 2014, as I said. Ahead of this, we have used the management information that is available to release limited relevant data on a one-off experimental basis, published on 25 November last year. As I mentioned earlier, we will review the effects of the fees and regulations, and lay a report before Parliament following 30 months of operation. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do consider the Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd and 27th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee