Universal Credit

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that this is potentially a major target for cybercriminals. We have made an enormous effort in developing the digital system, which is a two-way system, unlike the live system that we are currently rolling out across the country. We are making sure that that is safe from cybercriminals, and the first group of people are looking at security operations, because it is not a question of just building a system; you have to maintain it with a big team to make sure that nothing of that nature is going on.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm that when this House enacted the Welfare Reform Act 2012, the planning assumption was that up to 1 million households would now be receiving universal credit? Will he acknowledge that actually the number of households receiving universal credit is just over 50,000? Will he also accept that that means that lots of families are being denied useful help month by month and the delay is therefore important? Will he undertake to talk to his business manager friends on the Government Front Bench to try to find ways of regularly updating the House over the next 18 months? The delays in the introduction of universal credit are now causing real grief within low-income households.

[Lord Freud]

One of my purposes today is to find a forum where I can update noble Lords in this Chamber about what is happening in a somewhat more sensible atmosphere than is perhaps seen elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster. On the point about timing we have reset this programme, as I am sure all noble Lords here well remember, and will not be going on to the rather sharp upgrades in the volumes that we were initially looking at. We are now designing it in such a way that we will test different groups and make sure that we roll it out sensibly. That was what the reset was about and, interestingly, it is exactly what the NAO and MPA are saying is the way to roll out big programmes.

Family and Relationship Support

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Baroness asks an important question. We are working with a number of different organisations to ensure that the relationship support that we deliver covers a whole variety of different types of relationship, including Muslim relationships and those where there is an element of domestic violence. I reassure the noble Baroness that that is being included.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

At the family summit last August, the Prime Minister indicated that the budget for family relationship support would double to £19.5 million, whereas the Conservative manifesto in May merely referred to “at least £7.5 million”. Can the Minister confirm that there is a budget line in the DWP departmental expenditure limit for fiscal year 2015-16 that has at least £7.5 million in it? How long will that programme last, and is it exempt from the forthcoming budget cuts?

[Baroness Altmann]

I can confirm for the noble Lord that the commitment to £7.5 million per annum is a firm one, and we will be spending at least that amount. The total government-wide spending for family, parenting and relationship support is approximately £6.5 billion, with a number of different programmes, including the troubled families programme, help and support for separated families, the innovation fund and, of course, childcare support. In our manifesto we have guaranteed funding for relationship provisions every year over the Parliament. We were the only party to do so.

Pensions: Reforms

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. She is an expert and the House is lucky to have access to her experience. I support most of what she has said, but I would underscore her last point about the importance of the entitlement of women in the past and in the future. It was one of the issues that Steve Webb dealt with best, and my noble friend Lord German has paid a substantial and appropriate tribute to him. We are all agreed that we need to be solicitous of women’s rights and entitlements in the country’s future pension provision policy.

I declare an interest. I am the chairman of the General Medical Council’s superannuation DB scheme. It has been a source of education for me on some of the complexities of investment policy and will inform some of the things I have to say. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Flight, not only for the debate today but for the keen interest he takes in this issue. We are on different sides of the park on some of the economic arguments but no one can take away from him the fact that he has been dedicated to trying to get people to consider a savings policy. He, too, has great knowledge from which we benefit.

I welcome again—I will keep welcoming her for a long time to come—the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to her ministerial role. I am going to offer her some quite gratuitous advice: she should refuse to resign. If over the next five years she is threatened with a ministerial reshuffle, I hope she will promise to come and tell some of her friends on all sides of the House that that is a possibility because we know where the Prime Minister lives and how to give people a really hard time. It is stark-staringly obvious why I say that. One of the reasons Steve Webb was a successful Minister is that he was not one of 14—he was in place for five years. If the noble Baroness is given a full term, I am confident that she will make a positive contribution. If the ministerial role is chopped and changed it will be to no one’s advantage. We will be solidly behind her when she refuses to resign. I hope she will take that piece of advice.

I would also advise the Minister to do nothing, take no steps and make no changes until she is absolutely sure that the department has given her the full brief on winners and losers in both the long and short terms. I do not need to tell her that. It is important that we recognise the significance of some of the changes that may be made for ordinary people and the political ramifications of those changes.

As a Scot, perhaps I may remind her that quite a bit of the industry is based in Edinburgh. There is quite a lot of politics going on in Scotland at the moment as well. If she were kind enough to visit Edinburgh, I would personally organise the pipe band. There is a serious point to be made about the other parts of the United Kingdom as well because this is a UK-wide policy area. A lot of it is—and should be—based in the City but there are other parts of the kingdom furth of London. I do not think I need to tell her that, either.

This has been a very good debate which will repay careful study. I want to support some of the things that other noble Lords have said. I am sure the Minister knows already that the game has changed. Thinking about pensions needs to be done entirely differently in the future. I was encouraged that, in his important remarks, my noble friend Lord German referred to the need to look after low-paid households and low-paid members of schemes—particularly DC schemes. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, said about the significance of DC schemes and the decisions we will have to take about them. I support—well, half support—what he said about the need for a new commission.

Will the Minister go back to the department and ask for the papers about the Pension Provision Group to be dug out? The group was set up by Harriet Harman in about 1992, and a splendid Scot called Tom Ross chaired it. The group was independent and had access to specialist departmental support staff. It did an analysis of the waterfront and came up with the recommendation that eventually led to the Pensions Commission. That valuable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, was therefore spawned by the work done by Tom Ross’s group.

The plea from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, to have a full-blown rerun of the commission—which I would support—falls on deaf ears because it is too complicated or would take too long. Perhaps I may recommend an alternative. It is not as good, but it would do. It could be done within 18 months and would produce a SWOT analysis which I think the Minister would find very useful. This would be a small, independent group which would look at where the gaps are. As other noble Lords have said, all the reforms that have been put into place have rightly been made with all-party support. We are grateful to be in this position. We should also be grateful for the quality of the industry that we have behind us. We are global leaders in this area.

Although the situation is urgent and needs attention, we should not forget the industry in our deliberations. I think it was really fed up and ticked off by the announcement in Budget 2014 that all these changes would happen “just like that”. I understand why that was done. Some information is market sensitive and some things have to be announced in ways that protect it. However, we must give the industry an honest chance to participate in some of our thinking about the future. We need to be looking at how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. There are gaps and I think that the Minister will be driven to address them. It would be better if she anticipated them and started thinking about them before they happened.

A total savings culture change is necessary, and I was very interested to see that Mr Martin Wheatley of the FCA said the other day:

“You can no more live in modern society without finance than you could without housing or water”.

Coming from the chairman of the FCA, that is a pretty powerful statement, and I absolutely agree with it. It is the sort of thinking that should underlie all of our policies in the future. In the long term the culture will change, and I am sure that the Minister’s experience will serve her well in driving the agenda.

I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, when he says that we should promote the Minister to a senior role in the Treasury. If my experience is anything to go by, she will find that the ideas she may have in the future will be blocked by people along the road. This agenda needs to be driven by someone who is in the middle of the spider’s web. I know that she will be in the middle of her own spider’s web, but she needs a bigger web. She needs Treasury support to do what she needs to do, and I think she probably knows that.

In the short term, running repairs are necessary, as is identifying the gaps. A Pension Provision Group analysis would help in that. I concur entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, in what he said about occupational schemes. Come 2018, we will need to be vigilant about what is happening to these schemes. I am very worried about this. If I have read the data from the auto-enrolment declaration of compliance report correctly, at the moment there are as many people—5.2 million to 5.3 million—outside auto-enrolment as are inside, and that is only looking at bigger employers. The next phase of auto-enrolment will involve smaller employers. The effect of earnings of £10,000 triggering access along with job definition and self-employment restrictions means that we are leaving a whole lot of people outside the scheme, and that is even before we get to the version of the problems described by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. He is right to remind us about that. Indeed, he made a powerful speech in the debate on the Queen’s Speech which I read with interest; he has persuaded me about this.

I shall make a quick point about the triple lock. My noble friend Lord German said that there are some savings to be made, and he is correct. Her Majesty’s Government are making huge savings over a 50-year or 60-year schedule, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, by suppressing the accrued rights of S2P from maturing in the future. They are also making huge changes in terms of extending the state pension age. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that within reason it is a sensible thing to do, but people need time to plan for it. So any attack on the triple lock, certainly in this Parliament, should not happen. Colleagues should remember that the triple lock can still exist and be cheaper because all you need to do is change the definition of earnings or reduce the increase from 2.5% to 2%. Those are the factors. I would not put it past the Treasury to do this if things get tough later on, but if it happens, I can tell the noble Baroness that she will meet stout resistance from, I suspect, all sides of the House. If the Government do try to do that, we will start to look seriously at the savings they will be making over the long term in terms of SPA and abolishing S2P rights. She will have a fight on her hands if that is tried, so I am warning her of it right now. I will say it only once, because it is important.

Finally, I think that the Pension Wise service is wholly correct, but wholly inadequate. I said earlier that I learn an enormous amount as the chairman of a defined benefit scheme. It is a struggle, although it has a really supportive sponsoring employer who could not do more to support the trustees in trying to defend the interests of the scheme members. It is now fantastically complicated trying to stay ahead of the curve, given the volatility of the asset market and gilts. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, knows more about those than I do. Investment rates and contribution rates over a 40-year period are nearly impossible for individuals to work out, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is almost impossible for ordinary people to comprehend during a 40-minute Pension Wise interview. They need continuous help.

As the chair of a small superannuation fund, I get fortnightly briefings about the state of the market to try to stay ahead of the game. If ordinary people who know nothing more about the pensions industry than the man in the street do not get enough help, then I am not surprised that they get into ISAs. Maybe we should be thinking more carefully about that, which is another important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. Right now, I am certain that while the guidance guarantee was correct, it is inadequate. It really needs to be substantially beefed up if it is to be safe.

In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I wish her well. I am sure that she will be successful and that she will be in her role for five years, because if she is not there will be more to-do about it, in my view. She is part of a one-nation Government who are contemplating £12,000 million of cuts, if the Chancellor is to be believed. We will also be looking to her to fight the good fight within government, to make sure that low-income families in particular, who are trying to save and to make proper provision for an adequate retirement income, are properly protected by this one-nation Government over the course of these cuts. I wish the Minister well.

Child Poverty Act 2010 (Persistent Poverty Target) Regulations 2014

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness—my noble friend, as we steal one another’s best lines. I concur with just about everything that she has said except to say that, while I yield to no one in having demanded money over the last 30 years for social security purposes, I am getting quite frightened about the national debt; £1.449 trillion is an enormous sum of money. You may have to configure responses to these kinds of policies a little more carefully than I have been doing.

Having said that, however, I would like to gently poke the Minister in the ribs, politically speaking. The pupil premium has been a significant potential success but I am not sure that we can be certain that this is replicated throughout the United Kingdom. We will need to watch that very carefully in future. Weighing in the balance some of the work done by the IFS, of which I am a council member, the persistent reductions in the social security spend over the past five years have been enormous. There is a lot of tension here and we have to do all that we can to remain positive and ambitious.

I concur with the view expressed by just about everyone in the consultation, including the noble Baroness who has just spoken, that 5% would have been a more ambitious target. That is an opportunity missed. I am trying to understand better the basis on which the target has been set. I think that the circumstances have changed a lot since 2010. Along with other colleagues, I was responsible for the implementation of the Child Poverty Act 2010, and I thought that it was the right thing to do. It was much more focused on money than it now is, so I can understand the coalition Government’s intention to try to broaden the approach to deal with some of the underlying consequences, but it is a bit disappointing.

I know that this is not easy but at paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum there is a confession that the Government,

“are not yet in a position”,

to take some of these new child poverty measures forward. Can my noble friend the Minister give us any expectation of when that work may be completed? He is right to say that we are all slightly blindsided by the fact that the British Household Panel Survey data finished in 2008, so we will probably have to wait until the end of 2015 to see the data that we really need. If that is the reason for the delay, I will understand; it might be impossible to make any sensible assessments until that point. However, that leaves it rather late to try to affect things by the end of fiscal 2020, which I suppose means achieving a target by 31 March 2021.

However, that is still a very short timescale. The legislature is right to say to the Executive, “There may well be compelling reasons why we are hastening slowly here”, but it is unfortunate that we still do not have a clear idea what the Government are really driving at—an argument reflected, reasonably, by the Scrutiny Committee. From a position of relative poverty standing at 17% in 2012-13—although it may be 27%, because of the difference in before and after housing costs—trying to get to 7%, or even 5%, over the period from 2017-18 to 2021 is a good trick, if we can do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I speak here from a somewhat privileged position, in that I advised the last Government in exactly this area and now speak for the current Government on it. So I am in a position—

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

A very Liberal position.

[Lord Freud]

So I am in a position, slightly embarrassingly, to do this. The trouble with statistics is that you can get very confused by them. When you have had a massive increase in employment and a lot of people entering the market—2 million people into the private sector—you have some very substantial distorting data relating to those new entrants, which change the averages. You have also had massive changes because of the biggest financial crash since the 1930s—it used to be since the 1920s. I looked through the figures, and one-third of the fall in average income, for instance, can be roughly explained, as far as I can tell, by the reduction in bonuses in the City. Before one looks at these average figures, one really needs to dig under them to understand them. Otherwise, people in the Opposition will get into some cheap points that do not really stand up and which will just look foolish when people do the research properly, which they will do in the years to come.

I come off the generality into the specifics and the very difficult set of problems involved in solving child poverty, which we remain absolutely committed to. I will go through the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the qualifying households. Surveys work by taking data from private households, so there are a relatively small number of children—it is a small number—who are not in there. They are, as she said, children in children’s homes, Travellers and one or two other categories, as she mentioned.

The after-housing-costs point has been very thoroughly debated. My noble friend will remember the thoroughness of some of those debates; the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was there too. Costs before housing are the set of measures in the Act, which is why we are using them. To change the measures would be to rewrite the primary legislation. Also, clearly, if you use a different base, you might think about what the right percentage figure is. That is the reason that we use before housing costs as a standard measure and as an international comparison. It was chosen because after housing costs reflect, or can reflect, choices that people make to spend more on rent or mortgages because that is what they value more than other things. Therefore there was a good reason that that set of measures was chosen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

In the long term, the Government think that we need a revised set of child poverty measures which would better reflect the evidence about poverty’s underlying causes and where we need to target action most—the kind of thing that my noble friend Lord Farmer, in particular, was talking about, but we are not currently in a position to put those new measures forward. As our consultation, which the noble Baroness mentioned, showed, this is a complex area and there are a variety of views. I am afraid that that is all I am in a position to say at this stage.

On the noble Lord’s point about how these measures are made up; clearly, both relative and persistent poverty levels depend in part on how both median income changes and how those with low incomes improve relative to the median. That is just how the Act was made. We spent an awfully long time debating during the passage of the Bill a general level of discomfort with just this mechanistic approach to this kind of measure. That is just how it is, and that is what the Act shows, but the fundamentals are that we need to maintain our focus on helping those on lower incomes, which means helping people into work—or more work, which is what universal credit will do—and in help with living costs.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

The Minister is being very helpful, and I do not want to detain the Committee. Presumably Section 6(3) of the Child Poverty Act 2010, as I understand it, requires the Government to set a figure, which has been set at 7%. However, that is all it does. Presumably, the Government, on cause shown if the evidence changed, could in subsequent years change that target. Am I right about that?

[Lord Freud]

I actually said something rather careful—that we will keep the evidence under review. We will get some up-to-date evidence next year about the persistent poverty target in relation to the relative poverty targets. Clearly, we will be able to monitor that and see how it moves, but we will have set the targets here in these regulations.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

The question I am asking is: are we stuck with the 7% target until 31 March 2021?

[Lord Freud]

The targets are in secondary legislation, and it would be up to a future Government, for which at this stage I cannot talk, to change secondary legislation. In practice, yes; it is a changeable target.

As I said in my opening remarks, we are committed to tackling child poverty, and we have a strong record. Relative child poverty is at its lowest level for 30 years—a fact that will perhaps surprise the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. There are 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty since the election, and now 390,000 fewer children are growing up in workless families. We are especially committed to tackling persistent poverty and to breaking the cycle which sees poor children grow up to become poor adults. That is why I am proud to present these regulations before the Committee today, which set an ambitious persistent poverty target of less than 7% of all children in the UK, meeting our obligations under the Child Poverty Act 2010.

Social Security (Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) (Waiting Days) Amendment Regulations 2014

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

To move that the Grand Committee takes note of the Social Security (Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) (Waiting Days) Amendment Regulations 2014. (SI 2014/2309).

Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I am substantially discomfited by the fact that sitting on my right-hand side is the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Next week she is chairing a seminar on how we deal with these orders, and I hope that she does not mark me down too hard.

These regulations are not new to us, and we as a Grand Committee have been considerably assisted in their consideration by the work done, as always, by the scrutiny committee, which identified—rightly, I think—that these amendment regulations raise issues of policy interest to the House. I am also indebted to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which—again rightly, in my view—engaged in a formal consultation on these orders. I think that that was the right thing to do. I am sure that, like me, colleagues have been able to read the orders carefully; they repay careful study, and a consultation was proper.

In passing, I would say that it is disappointing that we got advance notice of these regulations in 2013—I think it was in the Budget, or perhaps the Autumn Statement—and that was repeated in the Budget Statement 2014, but these regulations required some consultation if the policymaking was going to be done carefully, and there was a whole fallow year following their announcement with a flourish—and I am getting more and more nervous about social security announcements that are made with a flourish in Budgets. So, that time in the year 2013-14 could have been used to look at some of these things.

The evidence that the SSAC has uncovered is invaluable in the consideration of this policy. Indeed, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the estimated saving is some £50 million in fiscal year 2015-16, and the savings will diminish thereafter. I guess that that is because we approach the introduction of universal credit in 2017-18, and I shall come back later to that important moment. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions the calculations done by the department, and these are useful for reference. Paragraph 3.10 of the SSAC report says:

“The … analysis indicates that for 2015/16, the number of new claimants likely to be most at risk of suffering financial hardship are around 245,000 in JSA and 35,000 in ESA … The estimated average loss of benefit to each claimant from this policy change is £40 for JSA claimants and £50 for ESA claimants”.

That is very helpful to know. The point that I want to raise more than anything else is the hardship that will be experienced by that client group—the 35,000 people on ESA and the 245,000 on JSA. That is the point of discussing this here today.

I am opposed to these changes. If I thought I had any chance of getting a Division that would successfully annul them, I would have tried that. I am seriously considering doing so, depending on what support I can garner from colleagues if restrictions such as waiting days are put on universal credit as we approach 2017. These are savings dressed up. They are pretty mean-spirited and hit the most vulnerable. They again concentrate cuts on the working-age population and take no account whatever of the environment of the past four or five years. A policy of this kind, if it were to be applied eventually to universal credit, would be much worse.

I therefore support the SSAC’s recommendations and need to continue the analysis. I understand and am grateful for the extra work that the department has put in as a result of the request from the Social Security Advisory Committee. The case for exempting ESA was strongly made but resisted by the Government, which is a shame. The case that the SSAC made for promoting short-term benefit advances as a way of trying to alleviate some of the hardship was discarded in a rather offhand way by the Government. Members of the ESA and JSA client group who are most at risk in 2015 and beyond will have to rely on STBAs because they do not have any other options to plug gaps in benefit. I clearly support the idea from the SSAC that communications must be absolutely crystal clear regarding what is happening to the client group so that they can understand the position in advance and get their claims in early. The recommendations of the committee were all well founded. I was pleased that the Government accepted some, but not all, of them.

I want to say a word about context because I get the impression that the department does not pay enough attention to the payment regime. The system of paying benefits to low-income households who operate on a weekly or fortnightly cash basis underestimates problem that some of these delays and reductions will bring. I remember the good old days before 1998, as will other colleagues, when benefits were actually paid weekly and everyone knew where they were. That changed in 2009 to payments fortnightly in arrears, and in 2018 we are facing the cliff edge of universal credit paid monthly in arrears. I do not think that the department fully appreciates the significance of the change in the method of payment. I point out the obvious fact that Social Fund crisis loans are no longer available and there is an uncertain labour market in which people are much more quickly churning in and out of benefits and work.

Yesterday I was made aware of a publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which reminded me that over the past four years we have been taking, and will take, £20,000 million out of benefit expenditure in every year of this Parliament. That is a huge amount and the vast majority is being focused on working-age benefits. In a wider context, although I might be out of order in terms of this debate, we need to think clearly about how the cuts are shared across any future attempts to reduce social security spending, 50% of which is now spent on the retired cohort of our population.

I want to say a brief word about the eight vulnerable groups who have been identified. I am sure that the categories are not new to any of us. They include 18 to 24 year-olds, the homeless, disabled people and prisoners—who are of particular interest to me as a non-executive director of the Wise Group. We have a Routes Out of Prison programme which tries to mitigate the fact that we send prisoners out on a Thursday morning from Barlinnie prison with £46 in their hands and next to no other support. Issues such as those contained in the regulations will make their lives and futures worse. Concerns about the vulnerable groups identified by the SSAC are all well founded, and we need to watch the impact of these regulations on these eight categories very carefully.

I want to make two other points. The so-called list of investments that we now have access to as a result of this £50 million saving being recycled was first adverted to by the Chancellor as part of the 2013 spending review. They are things like upfront work search, English language requirements, weekly work search reviews and annual verification. I may be missing something, but I thought all this happened anyway. If it has not been happening since 2013, I will be disappointed. I do not see that we can demonstrate clearly that these savings are going to make any difference whatever, which folds back to the point that I made at the very beginning—that this is actually a dressed-up saving. It is the departmental expenditure limit that will get the benefit of this £50 million and next to nothing else. This is why I want to press the Minister about evaluation. There is an undertaking here in the Explanatory Memorandum which talks about looking at the results of these new investments and how beneficial they will be. I am very sceptical about that and would like to hear a little more about it.

The SSAC report says that the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that there was likely to be “no impact” on business or charities is “implausible”. It is being very polite. Anybody who knows anything about the 245,000 and 35,000 people in the client groups that we are dealing with realises exactly how important charities are to people in that situation. I do not think that the department is living in the real world. It is a laughable statement. This will lead to payday loans and all that they bring, which is potentially deeply regrettable.

With the funding available to local authorities also being reduced, these regulations are bound to increase hardship. It may not involve millions of people, but it will affect those whom it does affect severely. I want the Government, in evaluating how these regulations are implemented, to have very careful regard to the consequences and the effects on these families. I want them in particular to reflect very carefully about bringing forward similar regulations when it comes to introducing universal credit later in the next Parliament. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for initiating this take note debate on a very important subject. I apologise if I repeat any of the points that he made, but they bear repetition because there has not been sufficient publicity about the implications of these important regulations. The SSAC, as we have heard, is very critical of them, especially of the lack of robust analysis of the costs and benefits. The impact assessment that the Government have produced in response is certainly an improvement. Whether it constitutes that robust analysis is another matter, but it does at least give us more information on those who are likely to be affected. I accept that it does give some credence to the original—unevidenced—claim that many affected would be,

“coming to benefits from relatively well paid jobs”,

as the lowest paid are more likely to have linked claims and therefore not be affected. Nevertheless, nearly two-fifths of JSA and three-fifths of ESA unlinked claims were from those earning less than £5,200.

Introduction: Baroness Smith of Newnham

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is clearly utterly important that the sanctions regime is fair to people. We have put in layer on layer of protections and safety nets in the machine. People have, to start with, five days to respond to the letter saying that we are looking at a sanction. Then it goes to a decision-maker and then, if claimants do not like that, to a mandatory reconsideration, which is an extra layer. Then you can go into the tribunal process, and we have hardship. We are putting many measures in to make sure that we run this system as fairly as we possibly can.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Having worked with him closely in the past four or five years, I think that the Minister plays an absolutely crucial and effective role in the important reforms that are designed to assist low-paid families in this country, and if he was not here, things would be harder to deliver on time and on budget. However, the scale of sanctions surprises me, with 800,000 or 900,000 sanctions per year. That is not something that I expected ever to see. The claimant commitment that we have is beginning to appear to be used as a coercion document to get people to do things that they do not really want. Will the Minister look again at the report that Professor Paul Gregg did some years ago, which suggested that the way in which to get an appropriate use of sanctions is to involve the claimants at an early stage in a joint enterprise to get a claimant commitment to work?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have really transformed the role of the client-facing people in Jobcentre Plus and turned them into work coaches; that is what the claimant commitment does. It is something that has been done very recently. The relationship between claimants and the work coaches has changed very substantially already.

Universal Credit

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is a very large programme and the way we are doing it is quite responsive. What we have is a test and learn process. That is not just an empty phrase. It is a very large process, based on a live run-out of many tens of thousands of people, which feeds into how we build a fully digital interactive service that we are building at the same time. We will make changes to the process. That is what it is about. It would be silly to do all that work without being responsive. We learn lots of things. One of my jobs is to try to understand what we are finding out and then make those changes. There will be changes. Having said that, we announced a rollout process in December and we are, to my pleasure, managing to get it out to time with those plans. The next stages, which are towards the end of the year, are really important—moving on to families, bringing in childcare and going to that digital place. By the end of the year we will have a working test bed of how a fully interactive process will work. I am not saying it will not change after that, but I am saying that we are doing what we were planning to do.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to redouble his efforts, as he has undertaken to do, to maintain cross-party support for this transformational programme which is so important to the future of our country. I am as impatient for implementation as anyone, but I exhort him to do this carefully—as he is doing—even if it means that the programme slips a little. It is better that it works properly than it is rushed and done wrongly. Does my noble friend agree that there is an advantage to keeping some flexibility in the funding of the scheme? Passported benefits, childcare costs and the local support services framework are all massively beneficial, and the Treasury should be persuaded to invest more money so that the programme is even more effective in future.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are indeed trying to get that flexibility. One can look at our very intensive dialogue with the Treasury—going through point by point and milestone by milestone—in two ways. One can look at it as pretty onerous, and it is. On the other hand, it gives one a chance to look at what we should be doing next and changing it. One example is on the support system delivered locally—in the jargon, the LSSF. We were able to go to the Treasury and get more money put into that process quite recently because it could see how valuable and important that was.

Not locking everything down early and having that dialogue works. Frankly, you do not know what you are going to find out or what you are going to need to do when you have a major programme. Having that understanding from the Treasury of what we are doing and keeping it well-informed so that we can make those changes as we go along does work.

Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

My Lords, I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They make consequential and supplementary changes to primary legislation to support the clarified definition of money purchase benefits in Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011.

A further, and more detailed set of regulations, The Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014, deal with consequent changes to secondary legislation. These were laid before Parliament on 3 July 2014. Both sets of regulations will come into force at the same time as the clarified definition in Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011.

The clarified definition of money purchase benefits will ensure that only benefits which cannot develop a deficit in funding can be money purchase benefits. Noble Lords may be familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court in 2011, in the case of Houldsworth and another v Bridge Trustees Ltd, that certain benefits which could develop funding deficits or surpluses could still fall within the definition of money purchase benefits.

While this decision concerned two specific types of benefit structure found in a particular scheme, it created widespread uncertainty in the pensions industry. That was because the decision could also be interpreted as covering other types of benefits and place these outside the protection of the regulatory framework for benefits that are not money purchase, even though they had the potential to develop funding deficits.

Section 29 of the Pension Act 2011, which has retrospective effect, and the supporting regulations remove that uncertainty. Where in the past decisions have been made by schemes that are in keeping with the clarified definition, the retrospective effect of Section 29 will ensure they remain valid, despite the fact that those decisions may be incompatible with the Supreme Court’s judgment. Where decisions have been made that are inconsistent with the clarified definition there is transitional provision in the regulations so that schemes will not need to unpick past decisions. Going forward, however, it is important that the trustees and managers of schemes know what action they need to take in respect of benefits they have previously treated as money purchase, but which do not meet the clarified definition. That will ensure that their members are protected.

In particular, these regulations amend Section 84 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to provide an alternative method for trustees or managers to revalue certain types of benefits known as cash balance benefits. The cash balance method allows the sum available for a cash balance benefit for a deferred member to be revalued by any method that is applied to the benefits of active members where it cannot be calculated by reference to the salary.

The regulations also include decisions made by the board of the Pension Protection Fund that relate to benefits affected by the clarified definition as matters that are reviewable under Schedule 9 to the Pensions Act 2004. That will ensure that during the transitional period, where the board has exercised discretion as to whether to treat benefits as money purchase benefits, that decision can be challenged and subject to a formal review process.

The Government have worked closely with the pensions industry to identify the type and number of schemes that will be affected by the clarified definition of money purchase benefits. The majority of schemes will be hybrid schemes—that is, they will contain a mixture of money purchase and non-money purchase benefits. Hybrid schemes make up about 2% of the estimated 40,000 private occupational schemes in the UK which include money purchase benefits—that is, approximately 800 schemes.

I commend the Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014 to the Grand Committee and ask its approval to implement them.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this technical debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the defined benefit superannuation scheme of the General Medical Council, so unfortunately I know nothing about money purchase schemes. I did try, honestly—I took home the 36-page judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, and read it carefully until Germany scored the second goal. I still do not understand the noble and learned Lord’s reasoning, but I am sure that it is sound.

I hope that the Minister can help me. I understand that we are dealing with two sets of statutory instruments. The department deserves credit for taking on board the suggestion made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of teasing out the negative from the affirmative. That is always good practice. However, I do not know where the transitional regulation, Regulation 1711, comes from. I assumed that it would have been sensible to have taken these together because they talk about the same thing and are all part of a piece. However, I may have missed something and the Minister might be able to put me right on the procedure that is involved.

This is a small but important issue and anyone who looks at it will be reminded of the ineffable complexity of our pensions system. I have to say that although this is the right thing to do and I am content with the regulations, they form another layer of complexity—because they have to. If money purchase is not defined in this way, it would leave a terrible amount of uncertainty. If people do not understand a valid, watertight description of money purchase, chaos will ensue. Lots of schemes could get into even greater difficulties in the future.

We always have to be careful about retrospective provision. These regulations go back to 1 January 1997. I understand perfectly why and, in the circumstances, that is justified, but, as I say, we must always be careful about retrospective provision. However, I think this is the right tactic. It is not perfect because retrospection never is, but the stated case is accepted, certainly as far as I am concerned. Clarity is the order of the day, as much as we can achieve it in pension provision.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Some of these things are imponderable because the data are not available in money purchase schemes to the same extent as in defined benefit schemes, but the number of affected schemes has been listed as being around 800. Is there an update on that figure and is there now a better definition? Has the number gone up or down since these matters started to be drawn up by the department? I also want to try to understand what the costs of non-compliance would amount to. What is the worst that could happen? If everything that can go wrong does go wrong, what would happen to hybrid schemes such as these which involve money purchase in a way that we have to change through these regulations?

As the chairman of a superannuation scheme myself, the key and overriding priority of a trustee is to protect the members’ benefits. Are there any circumstances where benefits afforded to members could be prejudiced by these changes? I have looked at the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 19 explains the provisions of,

“transitional measures to assist affected schemes in three ways”.

The first bullet point talks about,

“retrospective protection so that schemes do not have to revisit past decisions”,

and goes on to conclude that,

“there is very likely to be no detrimental material impact on member benefits”.

That is a nuanced subordinate clause, and perhaps it has to be so. I would rather have the truth than be given a more definitive statement that was easier to understand and more reassuring. However, that is a key question for me. If I could be given some reassurance on that point, I would be even happier than I am at the moment.

Finally, I think that the consultation was exemplary. I looked at the document very carefully and the department did everything it could. The consultation was responded to well and those who did respond are experts who know the exact consequences of these changes. For me, that has lifted a great deal of concern and apprehension about the effects of these changes. These regulations reflect circumstances that no one could have foreseen and the Government have responded to them in the best way they can. The situation is still a bit fuzzy at the edges, but I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the appropriate officials who understand these things will monitor the position so that we can be assured in the fullness of time that the assumptions we are making of very little or no loss of benefit to individual members are found to be what happens in practice in the future.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a trustee of both the Santander and Telefónica pension schemes.

This statutory instrument has been on a rather interesting journey. In part it supersedes draft regulations published in May, which were withdrawn and subsequently divided into two in order to separate provisions required to go through affirmative procedure from those required to go through negative procedure. It has therefore been a little confusing to try to anticipate the affirmative provisions to be relaid in the form of a pared-down instrument, as this SI was not laid until last Thursday. Having said that, I appreciate that dealing with the uncertainties and complexities that flow from the Supreme Court decision in Bridge cannot have been straightforward for the Government. I compliment the drafters of the Explanatory Memoranda and the impact assessment, who tried to provide clarity as to what the Government intend and why, in what to most normal people would seem a rather dense and complex set of requirements.

The two regulations have separate Explanatory Memoranda, but they share a common impact assessment, so one can assume that certain key assumptions and conclusions underpin both orders. I refer in particular to the fact that, having considered the consultation responses, the department has changed its policy on retrospection for non-compliant schemes. Decisions taken by schemes between 1 January 1997 and the coming into force of Section 29 will be validated, except in two limited circumstances that relate to winding up and employer debt, where there is a risk to members’ benefits.

The department has been persuaded that it would therefore be unduly burdensome to require schemes to revisit past decisions, which could give rise to expensive administrative costs that could deplete scheme assets and therefore the ability to fund members’ benefits—that is the argument put by the Government—and that the impact of members’ benefits of revisiting past decisions since July 2011 would be negligible. In summary, the Government are persuaded that with two exceptions, Section 29 will come into force only with prospective effect; there will be retrospective protection for schemes and past decisions will be validated.

However, in coming to that view and giving that retrospective protection to decisions made, the department is unable to quantify the impact of the regulations on schemes likely to be affected. There are no data available at an industry-wide level. The consultation did not elicit sufficient data at scheme level to allow the department to produce reliable estimates of the impacts on schemes and on members—and indeed, on employers. The department engaged further through the pensions regulator’s annual survey and the wider pensions industry to enable some quantification of costs and benefit. However, insufficient information was forthcoming.

A question must be, therefore: are the Government right to be persuaded, and indeed confident, that except in the defined limited circumstances that they have identified, there is negligible risk to members’ benefits in validating decisions taken by schemes before the coming into force of Section 29? Should there be more exceptions to the retrospective validation? How do the Government give themselves the level of confidence they need to give that retrospective validation? I will illustrate my concern with reference to a couple of examples.

The very important rules which govern any attempts to change pension rights or entitlements are detailed in Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995, popularly referred to as “Section 67 rights”—an often quoted phrase because of its protected nature. During the course of the consultation on the regulations arising from the Pensions Act 2011, stakeholders advised the department that there could be schemes which had inadvertently changed their benefits from non-money purchase to money purchase; for example, by removing a guarantee from a cash balance scheme because of their interpretation of the law in force at the time. In doing so they may not have secured the members’ consent as is required.

The department has taken the view that schemes should not be required to revisit these decisions and that it would deem that the requirements of Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 had been satisfied where the actuarial equivalence requirements were met before such a scheme modification took effect. But those actuarial equivalence assumptions may not hold good over the longer term, and the issue remains that a guarantee or some other right has been removed without consent. The Section 67 requirements have not been met and the beneficiaries may be worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, a number of questions have been asked. I have counted 19, which compares to the five that were asked when these regulations were scrutinised in the other place. I am sure that that is a reflection of the quality and expertise, if not the viewing habits, of the members of the respective committees. I confess that at one point last night I was not sure whether the scoreline reflected the football match I was watching or the judgment of the Supreme Court which happened to be open on my lap at the same time.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

That was 4-1.

[Lord Bates]

At half time.

There are many questions and I want to try to address as many of them as possible to get the responses on the record for people to scrutinise. First, my noble friend Lord Kirkwood asked how many schemes were affected by the clarified money-purchased benefits definition. It has not been possible to quantify the exact number of the affected schemes as trustees and scheme managers are only required to make detailed reports to the pensions regulator on benefits that they consider to be non-money purchase. Schemes are not required to provide detailed reports of benefits that they consider to be money purchase, so any information held by the regulator here is self-reported by the scheme on a voluntary basis.

We consulted extensively on this point, and the regulator has also tried to secure additional data. However, stakeholders have been unable to share with us the detailed scheme-level data because that information is sensitive and restricted. A small number of consultation responses indicated the size of the scheme and the potential costs involved. However, the information is not representative of all the schemes affected, and cannot be reliably used to produce an aggregate estimate. The DWP continues to work with the regulator to identify and communicate with effective schemes to establish more comprehensive data on how many schemes are to be affected.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood also asked whether with the new definition the Government are adding costs and increasing the administrative burden on the schemes. I can assure my noble friend that that is not the case. Although the clarified definition is retrospective to 1 January 1997, in most cases the regulations modify the retrospective application of regulatory legislation so that schemes will not need to look back at events where benefits could fall into a category affected by the Bridge judgment or the clarified definition in Section 29. The clarified definition will mean that the member benefits are protected. The transitional measures will bring schemes into compliance, are proportionate and bear in mind the risks and the burdens on members, schemes and employers. We believe that that is the sensible approach, precisely because the Government want to minimise the additional requirements on schemes without jeopardising the protection of the scheme’s members.

My noble friend also asked why the Government insisted on a change of definition, and asked whether the Supreme Court decision was wrong. The Supreme Court judgment concerned two specific scheme benefit types: benefits which provided a guaranteed pot, otherwise known as cash balance benefits, and pensions in payment from schemes derived from money purchase benefits, both of which the court decided could be money purchase. The decision meant that some guaranteed benefits from outside the regulatory regime conflicted with the Government’s view of what constituted a money purchase benefit.

Why are the regulations not together? The department’s advice was that both sets of regulations would be debated together subject to the affirmative procedure. However, following comment from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the department decided to split the regulations. However, we expect that because both sets are closely linked together, the discussion will encompass transitional arrangements for both regulations.

I have addressed the question of why there are two separate regulations, but I will add one additional point. It has been necessary to divide regulations in that way because the primary legislation under which the regulations have been made—Section 33 of the Pensions Act 2011—provides a different parliamentary procedure for regulations which amend primary legislation. I appreciate that that procedural requirement has not made discussion and debate in this area easier, but I am happy for this debate to encompass both sets of regulations, as it has already done. On why the clarified definition of money purchase benefits is retrospective to 1 January 1997, the Government have decided on retrospection to that date so that the effect of the clarified definition coincided with the inception of key pension protection legislation. Provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 largely came into force in April 1997, hence the chosen date, but retrospection was set up on 1 January 1997 as the financial assistance scheme eligibility began for schemes which started winding up from that date. However, since the Pensions Act 2011 was passed, we have no evidence that any of the schemes in this position would have been affected by the Bridge Trustees judgment or Section 29.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether there was a pre-existing requirement to have benefits valued consistently with legislative requirements in the past. Some schemes may have valued in a way that was not consistent with those requirements. Evidence from the consultations showed that members’ benefits which here are affected by Section 29 and the regulations might have been revalued by the application of notional interest or investment return. It is possible that this would have been less than revaluation in accordance with statutory requirements. However, we had to balance the protection of members against avoiding administrative complexity for schemes. Evidence suggested that the cost of applying revaluation arrangements would outweigh the benefit to members.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also asked what the new cash balance method was. The new cash balance method is based on an existing flat rate method, which requires deferred members to receive any increases that they would have received if they had still been active members of the scheme. She also asked why there is no requirement to revisit the scheme if it is wound up. If the scheme is still being wound up at the time that the regulations come into force and is underfunded, trustees will be required to revisit an employer debt before the regulations come into force. If the scheme has completed winding up when the regulations come into force, there is no scheme in existence to unwind; all the assets of the scheme have been dispersed. The regulations therefore do not require a scheme that has completed winding up to be unpicked.

A question was asked about why schemes newly eligible for the Pension Protection Fund will not be treated as such until 1 April 2015. That date marks the beginning of the first full levy year after these regulations are planned to be in force. The delay will allow the schemes time to correctly determine whether they are eligible for the fund and to carry out the necessary valuations on which the first levy bill will be based. It also ensures that schemes will not be required to pay the levy in respect of past periods. It would not be fair to other levy payers to provide protection for an earlier period for a scheme that has not paid any levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the question of flipping. The department’s consultation exercise did not identify any scheme that will become newly eligible for the Pension Protection Fund that has a sponsoring employer likely to become insolvent in that small window of time. If such an event does occur, the Government will give consideration to the most appropriate way of protecting scheme members. It would therefore not be fair to other pension protection levy payers to protect the members of a scheme in respect of a period of time when the scheme had not paid into any levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether once the regulations are in force it would still be possible to change the scheme benefits without member consent from one form of non-money purchase arrangement to another with a lesser benefit promise. A change of this nature—a detrimental modification under Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995—would still be subject to a requirement that the value of the members’ rights or benefits was not less than before the change. If this requirement were not met, the change would be subject to being made void by the Pensions Regulator.

The noble Baroness also suggested that there were insufficient data for the Government to be able to conclude that there will be a negligible effect. Section 67 will continue to apply except in very limited circumstances where schemes have changed benefits from cash balance to money purchase. This circumstance is catered for in the negative set of regulations, which require the actuarial calculation between cash balance and benefits collected in the money purchase schemes to be maintained. In addition, the trustee approval and reporting requirements must have been satisfied.

The point was made that retrospection makes these regulations too complex. The clarified definition, when in force, will be retrospective to 1 January 1997. Retrospection to January 1997 is needed to protect the position of schemes that had taken decisions in accordance with the clarified definition in Section 29—that is, not in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment—but for schemes that have acted in accordance with the judgment, these regulations modify the application of regulatory legislation with retrospective effect and for the transitional period where necessary. The regulations cover the many different types of pension arrangements that currently exist and which could have been affected by the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of Section 29.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Supervised Jobsearch Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2014

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were debated in the other place on 30 June 2014, and I am satisfied that they are fully compatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

With the labour market growing stronger and increasing numbers of companies able to hire workers, everybody who is able to should be able to share in this recovery by being supported to find, and stay in, work. Over the last four years, the Government have extensively altered the landscape of our employment support services, both in Jobcentre Plus and throughout contracted employment provision.

With the introduction of universal credit and the claimant commitment, there has been a cultural change in the expectations of claimants and a conscious shift towards full-time work search. It is right that we expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to find work, and this can be a full-time activity. At the same time, we are committed to doing what is best to support harder-to-help claimants to prepare for and find work. The Work Programme has been able to transform the lives of those furthest from the labour market. Performance is continually improving, and more than a quarter of jobseeker’s allowance claimants with sufficient time on the programme have spent at least three or six months in employment.

As part of our continuing commitment to supporting people off benefits and into work, the department is committed to continue testing what works best to assist jobseekers who are the hardest to help. This is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced the supervised jobsearch pilots in October 2013. These pilot schemes will test what works and what does not. We will ask providers to deliver the pilots in five areas across England from autumn 2014 until spring 2015 and will be testing how best to deliver extra support to those claimants who need it. The aim of the pilots is to explore the impact on claimants of daily attendance, supervision and support for job searching. In terms of outcomes, we will look at how different interventions affect jobseeker motivation and confidence, as well as measuring the impact on claimants leaving benefits and moving into employment.

Participants will be referred to a supervised jobsearch for 13 weeks. We expect participants to move off the scheme within this period as they find work, but it is important to consider that these are claimants for whom finding work may take significantly longer than for others, and 13 weeks will give providers a reasonable amount of time to work with them to ensure that the support is effective. This approach will have a positive impact on moving claimants closer to, or into, employment. It will also give us the opportunity to add to our evidence base of what works for those who are among the most difficult to help.

Currently, claimants not yet referred to the Work Programme receive the Jobcentre Plus offer: a flexible and tailored menu of support led by work coaches who can, among other interventions, refer claimants to outside training and provision to address barriers. Claimants at risk of becoming long-term unemployed are supported by contracted providers through the Work Programme. These providers provide support to claimants, making use of local provision and services, and using a “black box” approach, with payment by results for getting people into sustained employment.

We always knew that some people would be returning from the Work Programme. Those who have participated in it and remain on benefits afterwards then receive a period of more intensive support from Jobcentre Plus. Since June 2013, claimants have been referred to the mandatory intervention regime, where advisers have more time to spend with claimants with complex needs. From April 2014, we have rolled out the help-to-work package, which added two other elements of support, on top of the mandatory intervention regime, for Work Programme returners. These were daily work search reviews, which take place over a period of up to three months, and community work placements, where claimants undertake work of community benefit for up to six months. These additional measures have given the clear message that we will not write anyone off and will continue to provide increasingly intensive support the longer that someone is out of the labour market.

The supervised jobsearch pilots will complement these measures we have taken in the current journey by maintaining momentum and motivation at a critical point in the claim. Pre-Work Programme claimants will be referred when they are three months away from a two-year mandatory referral to the Work Programme. This will apply to post-Work Programme claimants following six months of intensive support.

These regulations will allow the department to select and refer certain suitable claimants to participate in the pilots. Claimants will then attend the pilots for 35 hours each week for a 13-week period. Claimants will have to attend for fewer than 35 hours per week if they have any restrictions agreed in their claimant commitment. During this time, they will receive expert support and supervision from providers. This might include help with jobsearch, job goals, covering letters, job application skills and interview techniques. However, the exact provision will vary depending on the claimant’s needs and the individual provider running each pilot scheme.

We already expect claimants to do everything they reasonably can each week to give themselves the best prospects of securing employment. This covers not just work search but a whole range of activity to improve employability. The pilots are in line with this but, of course, if an individual cannot work full time—for example, because of agreed caring responsibilities—then we would expect them to participate in supervised jobsearch only on a part-time basis. Those selected for these pilots will at all times have access to facilities and staff to encourage and guide them along their journey.

None of the claimants eligible for these pilots will be new to the benefits system and will have spent the months prior to referral having their jobsearch monitored and skills levels gauged by Jobcentre Plus work coaches before reaching the point of being considered suitable for this extra support. Everyone goes into a new activity with different skill levels and learning styles, and looking for work is no different. Some individuals will have just emerged from jobs feeling confident in what they need to do and having contacts in the right places. Others may need more comprehensive help, support and guidance in order to seek out opportunities and prepare to present themselves again to prospective employers. This is what we are looking to provide through the supervised jobsearch pilots.

In order to inform the design of the pilots, we ran a supervised jobsearch test bed in Wolverhampton Jobcentre from December 2013 to February 2014. The test bed explored some aspects to inform these pilots, including confirmation that Jobcentre Plus is able to support this system. As a result of what we learnt from Wolverhampton, we have incorporated several elements into the pilots’ design, including: induction sessions to set clear expectations and assess individuals’ abilities; basic IT training; integrating group sessions and one-on-one support to retain claimants’ concentration and engagement; and supporting participants to focus on tailored, quality job applications.

It is right to expect people who are able to work to do all they can to find a job. This Government are committed to supporting people in this ambition. We know that our programme of support works well for most people. Two-thirds of people leave jobseeker’s allowance within the first 12 months, which is the most common work programme referral point. The claimant count has fallen for 19 consecutive months. We know there was support for the very long-term unemployed trailblazer, which ran from November 2011 to July 2012, but for those who reach long-term unemployment and are among the hardest to help, increasing the intensity of support improves their chances of moving into work. We know that jobseekers see the switch to the claimant commitment, with its focus on full-time job search, as something that will genuinely increase their chances of finding employment, while at the same time taking into account their personal circumstances. These pilots will test what can be achieved if we bring this knowledge of what works—tailored support, intensity and full-time activity—together in a way that is sensitive to individual needs.

I conclude by saying that we believe these pilots have potential to improve the employment prospects of those who are struggling in their search for work. That can be done through increased jobsearching ability, heightened confidence, more effective interaction with others and improved punctuality and time-keeping. The scheme has the potential to help people into sustained work, enabling them to increase their independence and build better lives for themselves, their families and communities. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the lucid way in which he introduced these important regulations. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Wise Group in Glasgow, which works in JSA service provision.

I am grateful also to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which looked at these regulations. It does excellent work; it is hard to overestimate the value it brings to some of these very complicated schemes. The committee came to the conclusion that it was not impressed. There are two issues here: the policy behind the pilot and the structure of the pilot—whether that is worth the candle. I want to rehearse some of its concerns, because they are self-evident to anybody who has studied these things. Pilots are very useful; they have played an important role in the past in developing policy and I am sure the Scrutiny Committee accepts that. But how do we expect to get real value out of something that starts on 6 October and ends on 15 April, when we are dealing with the possibility and the opportunity that these regulations provide, as the Minister rightly described, in helping people into sustainable work? In my book, sustainable work is a 12-month contract, with support that a jobseeker can take advantage of from being on benefits into that sustained job outcome. I have severe doubts, as does the Scrutiny Committee, that we will get anything of value in what I think is insufficient time. Why are we stopping on 15 April? Obviously, there is an election. I can see that coming—I am not that stupid. However, it is more important to get this policy right than to have niceties about purdah or any other technicality of that kind. I have serious doubts about what value we will get from the shortness of the period of the pilot. Indeed, client groups of 3,000 are not that useful, either. Before the debate started the Minister helpfully handed us a long list of exclusions of clients who cannot be included.

We have a very limited pilot here, and I think we could have had a much more useful opportunity to test some of these things. We have very minimal information about what will actually happen. Jobsearch is something that, if people have been in the Work Programme, should have been deployed for two years—and intensively, I would like to have thought. Now we have supervised jobsearch, which comes six months after two years so it will be really intense. The new system of Universal Jobmatch—which I have seen; it is very good—takes only about half an hour to prospect for jobs across the United Kingdom, because it is so efficient. This is a full-time commitment. People are being mandated to come in for 35 hours a week. How many hours will they spend over a Universal Jobmatch machine? They can get the full value out of it in half an hour, in my experience. It would help me to understand the value of these pilots better if the Minister could flesh out what would be done over this extended period of 13 weeks at 35 hours a week. What on earth are they going to do? We are told at paragraph 7.19 that:

“On day one, the provider must: assess the claimant’s skills and experience”,

et cetera. Then we are told:

“In week one, the provider must: carry out a number of activities with the claimant … On an ongoing basis, providers must: review and update the claimant’s portfolio, CV and action plan”.

These are things that I always assumed would be taken account of in the Work Programme anyway. Now they are doing it full time, for 35 hours a week for 13 weeks. I am in favour of providing support for people, but I do not know how that intense job-searching activity will look different from what they are supposed to have been doing for the previous two years.

I am interested in the pre-Work Programme group, because I do not understand where it came from. There is a logic to involving people who have been in the Work Programme. In any commonsense view, if someone has been unemployed for two years despite being in the Work Programme, in which they get a lot of help, it would suggest that more than their CV needs fixing. I do not know if it is possible to translate those people into the Troubled Families Programme; I hate that term, but the programme is interesting. It takes a holistic view, going beyond the front door of the family home, looking not just at the CV but at everything that is going on. Somebody who has been unemployed for two years despite the Work Programme’s assistance has got some serious issues behind the front door of the family home. It would be much more sensible for some of these people to at least be offered the option of taking a different route from that of looking at a Universal Jobsearch machine for 35 hours every week. That would drive me crazy.

The Scrutiny Committee says that there is scant information about the cost-benefit ratio for this. We have been told that there is a cap of £5,000 per head. I understand that if this is to be competitively tendered for, the department has got to be a bit canny in determining costs for contracts which will be bid for. However, Parliament requires a little more information, particularly given the department’s straitened circumstances, with departmental expenditure being squeezed so ruthlessly.

In passing, the whole-time staff equivalent costs are being substantially reduced. I looked at the annual report which came out a couple of days ago. In 2012, there were over 100,000 whole-time equivalent staff in the DWP. It fell to 98,000 in 2013. It is now 88,000. We are laying extra layers of responsibility on to a smaller cadre of hard-pressed staff. These job coaches will have their work cut out to do the work they already do on top of this pilot. The Minister was helpful in his introductory remarks, but any more information we can have about what will actually be done during this intensive period of job searching would certainly help me a lot.

I am looking at the Autumn Statement 2013, where the Chancellor said that,

“the Government will invest £700 million over 4 years in a new Help to Work scheme”.

He went on set out what that would do. He said it would,

“require all JSA claimants who are still unemployed after 2 years on the Work Programme to undertake intensive, often daily, activity to improve their employment prospects”

Is this part of that? Is this part of the £700 million four-year programme that the Chancellor set out in the Autumn Statement? I would like to know about that because, if it is, it would make it possible to place this pilot in a wider context. I must sit down. I have just realised how long I have been talking for.

My view about conditionality and support for getting people off welfare into work is captured accurately in the study that Paul Gregg did in 2008 for the previous Government. If the Minister will promise to read it at the weekend, I will say no more about it. That is a deal that he had better accept because, otherwise, it will take me another 20 minutes to explain its detail.

There are some opportunities here. I understand that. I am not against sanctions. I think sanctions should be restricted to a much smaller band of people than the 800,000 or 900,000 that we are headed towards. I am prepared to look at this. I know the Explanatory Memorandum states that the results of the evaluation will be published. I hope the Minister will confirm that on the record because that would give it some solidity and be an assurance. I hope this pilot produces something useful. I have great doubts that it will, but I understand why the Government are taking the powers they are taking. I wish the pilot well and I hope it works.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this order and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who should not have worried about going on too long. I should apologise because I intend to go on for a great deal longer than that, I fear. My speech will be composed mostly of questions to which—like the noble Lord—I struggled to find the answers. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I have been together wandering around the Palace hunting. I was so much driven by desperation that I even went to watch the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee debate these regulations yesterday. I have to admit that that the exercise was slightly more entertaining than it was informative—and it was not actually that entertaining, in truth. It was an attempt to try to find out what was behind it. Yesterday, the Minister did not manage to answer many of the questions, but I have confidence in our Minister who I know will answer them. If he cannot, I ask him to write on any questions that may be outstanding at the end.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, mentioned the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It was interesting reading. It might be worth reading a bit into the record. It commented rather drily:

“While the Committee has in the past commended well-structured pilot exercises as a means of informing policy development, it is unable to do so on this occasion due to a lack of information on how the scheme will work in practice. The Explanatory Memorandum provides minimal information on the pilot scheme and none at all on the cost of the exercise. We found virtually no material in the public domain about this proposal. No evidence is offered on why DWP expects the format and 13 week duration to be more successful than the existing interventions or why a shorter intervention might not be more cost-effective. We understand that the pilots will cost more than the existing programmes to run but not how they are expected to provide value for money, particularly when the candidates selected will be those who have failed to engage with the Work Programme”.

Apart from that, it loved it. It goes on:

“We therefore suggest that, before the House is asked to approve these Regulations, DWP offers … a revised Explanatory Memorandum”.

I discovered this morning that DWP had produced a revised Explanatory Memorandum which was put on the website last Thursday. Will the Minister take back a thought, which is one for all sides to consider? In circumstances such as this, where a department revises an Explanatory Memorandum very late in the day, he might reflect on the best way to bring that matter to the attention of Members of the House who might be interested—which I say, for the purposes of the avoidance of any doubt, would include Her Majesty’s Opposition on occasions such as this. I wonder whether he might consider whether there is any way we could make the communication process work better.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about context. These pilots were first announced by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, at the 2013 Conservative Party conference. Their aim was made clear when he said that,

“alongside the Mandatory Work Programme and our tough sanctions regime, this marks the end of the something for nothing culture”.

That is the context. To understand what this is about, it is worth looking at those two other bits of the package because what is happening here is connected directly to the Work Programme.

Its record, as noble Lords will know, is not hugely encouraging. Its performance is inconsistent and it has helped primarily those who are already closest to the Labour market. In another place the Minister of State, Esther McVey, responded on this point by talking about unemployment levels. Thankfully, I know that we have in the noble Lord a Minister who is better able to distinguish between the level of employment and the contribution made to it by the Work Programme, which is carefully evaluated.

While it is good news when anyone gets a job, there are significant gaps in the Work Programme. Over 1.5 million referrals have been made to it but fewer than 300,000 job outcome payments have been made. The success among disabled people is particularly bad, and not much more than one in 20 people on ESA are getting a sustained job outcome. However, the key point is that that means that 477,480 people have gone back to Jobcentre Plus after two years on the scheme. This is over two-thirds of participants who have completed their allotted time. Can the Minister tell the Committee if it is the intention to roll out this scheme, should it be deemed successful, to all of those 477,000 people?

It may be the case—given the piece of paper he handed to us at the start—that once those 11 categories of people who will be excluded are taken out, the number is smaller. If so, by how much? What is the size of the population who would potentially experience this, should it be rolled out? If so, what would that cost? My back-of-envelope maths suggests that at £5,000 a head, the cost will be about £2.4 billion. Are the Government really considering spending that on rolling out this programme to 477,000 people? If not, why are they piloting it?

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is of a more generous spirit than me—which I confess is not always hard—but I am ever so slightly suspicious that it was announced that the Work Programme was not doing well but there was nothing to say what you do to people who get to the end of it. Labour had suggested all kinds of things such as compulsory job guarantees. This scheme is not a good thing, but it is a thing. I will wait for the Minister to correct me, as he often does.

In relation to sanctions, the other part of the package, we have heard a lot of complaints repeatedly from people concerned that jobcentres are being pushed to sanction too many people, or inappropriately. As regards communication, the Minister has a job to do in reassuring the Committee about how the Government will make sure that anyone who is sanctioned is sanctioned appropriately.

There is, however, a serious issue behind this, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pointed out. We need to do something to redress the position of those who are still struggling, even after having received considerable amounts of help. The Government could usefully look at a more effective process of assessing jobseekers right at the beginning. Also, the Government’s proposals are not ambitious enough for the long-term unemployed. The Minister knows the Labour approach. We would offer a compulsory job guarantee to any young person out of work for a year, and to anyone else who was out of work for more than two years; basic skills tests; a more devolved model of commissioning; and different support for young people. However, these regulations are what the Government have produced, so I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us why their proposal will make a difference that our kind of schemes will not.

I have some specific questions, and I apologise for their number. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked, can the Minister tell us what people will do for 35 hours a week for three months? Will they all be doing the same thing as one another? Yesterday in the House of Commons, Esther McVey said that the Government were refining and tailor-making support for individuals. How individualised will the programme be? Will all the participants from any one provider be doing the same thing or different things? What range of things will they be doing?

The Minister there also suggested that they would vary according to client need and provider inclination. How then will the Government ensure that provision and supervision will be of good quality? If a provider bids low and does only what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, suggested and keeps claimants in a room with a computer screen and Universal Jobmatch for 35 hours a week, will that pass? It might be value for money because it would not be very expensive, but would it pass the quality threshold? The noble Lord is wrong to think that he would go completely mad; he could probably read the adverts for careers at CosaNostra Holdings several times to amuse himself before he became too bored with Universal Jobmatch; so he need not do it down too much.

Regulation 3(a) states that the scheme is to provide support,

“for up to 35 hours per week over a period of up to 13 weeks”.

Is it the intention to test varying periods and durations, or will everyone be expected to be there for 35 hours a week for 13 weeks?

--- Later in debate ---

Work coaches using their discretion to select claimants for certain programmes is nothing new. Throughout the Jobcentre Plus offer, work coaches will use their judgment to refer claimants to provisions that they think would be most suitable. Is four days long enough to allow a notification to be received? The four days includes time for the post. In the vast majority of cases, we expect the provider to supply the claimant with a notification at the end of the initial interview. Only in a small minority of cases might this be a problem; for example, with formatting, when the provider will send a notification by post.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

One of the experiences driven into my brain while working with the Wise Group is that there is a huge amount of ignorance about what is happening to some of these claimants. Some of that is because the letters sent to them are couched in language that is difficult to comprehend. Will the noble Lord pay special attention to making sure that the Queen’s English is used and that people understand exactly what they are being invited or required to do, and the consequences? The group that the Wise Group works with in Glasgow is often completely at sea about what is happening to them.

[Lord Bates]

We can certainly look at that. One of the reasons why it needs to be tailored, rather than just having a letter generated, is that a lot of those people will have literacy or numeracy problems. They cannot comprehend it, whatever form of English it happens to be delivered in. Therefore the ability to talk that through with someone in person, so that they can explain it at the meeting while giving claimants the formality of the letter, would seem to be the right way to do that.

In terms of how we will ensure quality of service throughout the contract, the majority of the payment made to providers will be based on service delivery. The standards of service delivery will be monitored throughout the contract and payment will be related to providers consistently meeting the required minimum service levels outlined in the specifications. In terms of what will happen if the work coach ignores the claimant’s view that they are not suitable, at the point of referral claimants will be able to make representations if they feel that a pilot will not be appropriate for them. The work coach would take this into account before making a referral. Where the work coach decides that a referral should nevertheless be made, the normal appeal route will be open to the claimant who refuses to attend and is sanctioned as a result.

In terms of varying periods and whether they will all be 35 hours, everyone will be attending for 35 hours unless they are not able to do so because of restrictions. That is the point that was made earlier. We acknowledge that people are caring for other people; for instance, there are parents caring for young children and they might have other responsibilities that are entirely legitimate and need to be built around. Again, that is the reason why it is a tailored and individual approach.

Personal Independence Payment

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are transforming the welfare system in this country. We are doing it across the piece. It is all very well for the Opposition to complain about the speed at which we do these programmes. These programmes are difficult to do. They were shied away from by the previous Government. I think that Peers all round the House will be pleased to see these transformational changes go in and transform the way in which this country operates at a fundamental level. There is a level of cynicism about what is always a difficulty: getting difficult, complicated programmes through exactly to timetable. People who know how difficult projects are know that process, but this is critical work for our country.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, there is, however, an important point that I would like the Minister to comment on, following on from earlier comments made by colleagues. People increasingly say to me that in the implementation of the flagship schemes contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 we are beginning to look as if we have bitten off more than we can chew. That is a matter of serious concern. On the narrow point of PIP, I exhort the Minister to hasten slowly. Will he give an assurance to the House that it is more important to him to get these things right than to do them quickly? In that regard, will he look at the possibility of clearing the backlog of personal independence payment claims before the rollout of the reassessment of DLA to other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as my noble friend said, we have to be careful to get the implementation right. We are aiming to do our programmes at the pace that we can do them, so if we have to slow down we will slow down. We go at the pace that works because it is one thing to not go at exactly the speed you may have planned at the beginning; it is another thing to make it difficult for people. In the case of PIP, we are looking at how we carry out the next stage of the PIP rollout, the natural reassessment process. We will extend that only when we have capacity to do so, and so far we have not made any decisions on when we will do that rollout.