Covid-19: Strategy

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

There is good reason for the two-metre social distancing rules, because experimental and mathematically modelled data support the view that the droplets associated with the spread of coronavirus—those expelled during breathing and talking—in the main drop to the ground within a two-metre radius of the person. There is science behind the two-metre rule. Having said that, as we continue with our hand washing along with social distancing, I hope that we will steadily move to having the disease even further under control. SAGE continually looks at this, but there is good reason for the two-metre rule at the moment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, given that we now know that the low paid in manual jobs face a greater risk of dying from the virus than high-paid white-collar workers, does the Minister consider that acceptable and what steps are proposed to rectify it? I join my noble friend Lord Monks in recommending that the Government look to TU safety reps as a significant resource to help tackle the current situation. Finally, one sector that the Government have particularly focused on to make a start under their “baby” return is construction. Of course, one thing we know about construction is that it is one of the riskier sectors so far as health and safety are concerned. There is a long history of challenges to the HSE. Although certain improvements have been made in recent times, it is an added challenge to the HSE to go about the task that it has been set. Are the Government satisfied with that?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

On the noble Lord’s first point, we are extremely concerned about the apparent disparities in how Covid-19 affects people. That is why Public Health England is undertaking a rapid review to provide insight into how factors such as ethnicity, deprivation, age, gender and obesity are disproportionately impacting people. That review is under way and the findings will be published at the end of the month. In relation to his other points, as I said, we are working closely with the unions and businesses in developing our guidance. I am sure that we will take advantage of the excellent union reps that the two noble Lords mentioned. We are working closely with business in all sectors, including construction, to make sure that the workforce who return go to a safe place. That is in all our interests, and I believe that employers and employees will work together to ensure that it happens.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness paints a bleak picture; I do not doubt that she is absolutely right.

Is there not a role in all this for the auditors, and a body whose feet can be held to the flames for not doing its job and not checking the systems, for example? It would not be a solution, but presumably it would contribute to an improvement.

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Lord raises an important point which highlights that I have not necessarily covered all the areas to be dealt with on this. Including auditors and having a requirement for them to verify the accuracy of data is indeed another way of approaching the issue. I went to trustees and scheme managers widely, but auditors are another area which might be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

I have some amendments which we will come to later concerning similar issues. I very much support this amendment. The briefing that we had from the ABI gave us quite an insight into the way that women suffer as a result of not having a proper pension settlement. I very much welcome Amendment 78, which seeks to get the spouse’s permission for the transfer of a pension.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, there are three amendments in this group. Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, focuses on the evidence of a member’s spouse’s consent when a transfer is to be made. We believe that this amendment has considerable merit and are supportive of it. Quite what the technicalities that come to confront us might be remain to be seen, but certainly we should seek to make progress on it.

Regarding the other two amendments in this group, Amendment 99 is simply the Northern Ireland equivalent of Amendment 77, which, as we have heard, deals with unfunded public service DB schemes. I am alarmed to hear that without this amendment they would be attacked by some source. That is rather worrying. Regarding the prescribed conditions that must be satisfied for the purposes of the provision, can the Minister outline what those might contain?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling her Amendment 78, which introduces further conditions to the right to transfer. It would require the consent of a current or ex-spouse or civil partner of the member before a trustee or scheme manager could transfer a member’s savings. This condition would apply where the member was getting divorced or dissolving their civil partnership or might do so in the future. It would therefore apply to all members who might seek to transfer and are married or in a civil partnership.

The amendment would introduce unnecessary and onerous conditions into new legislation. Options already exist for those who seek a financial settlement on divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership. The law identifies when pensions should be taken into account as part of a financial settlement on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership, and the courts will make the final decision if there is no agreed settlement.

Where a couple are negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership, they are obliged to disclose all assets, including pensions. The process includes provisions to compel disclosure where the court is concerned that the financial disclosure might not be honest or complete. The amendment introduces a radical precedent where someone other than the member will determine the final use of their financial asset without a court order or notice being in place. It is not a requirement for individuals to seek their spouse or civil partner’s consent in respect of other financial assets, such as sole name bank accounts. Why then would we include such a requirement in pension legislation?

In addition, the amendment would place additional burdens on trustees to verify that the spouse or civil partner consents to the transfer. In doing so, it risks causing a conflict with the trustee or manager’s fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of members.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about types of pension and the name of the scheme, and said that people might lose out in a divorce settlement. Both persons in a couple are obliged to declare assets when coming to a financial settlement in the context of the dissolution of their relationship.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My question related to Amendment 77 and unfunded public service DB schemes where there is a requirement for prescribed conditions to be satisfied before trustees or managers can use the cash equivalent. I sought to determine what those prescribed conditions might be.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

In the circumstances, I will write to the noble Lord if he will allow me.

In conclusion, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which is a very important amendment in the context of consumer protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has so excellently explained, the amendment is an attempt to ensure protection, particularly against scams. What we tried and succeeded in doing during the passage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act was to pass an amendment that would automatically see people before they transfer money out of a pension—or withdraw money from a pension—receiving at least the independent, impartial guidance that was originally intended to accompany the pension freedoms. When they were introduced, the aim was for everybody to be able to have this impartial guidance so they did not do the wrong thing and understood the risks of taking money out too quickly. This is another line of defence for the consumer given that that amendment, which was passed in the Lords, did not make it into the Bill. It was taken out in the Commons.

One line of defence would obviously be if someone has an authorised adviser or can demonstrate that they have received independent advice. A second line of defence would be the providers themselves asking a few very basic, approved questions: “Are you asking to transfer out because of an unsolicited communication of some kind?”, and, “Do you know anything about the scheme you are transferring into?”. The provider could ask two or three basic questions; should those questions raise red flags, there would be an opportunity to protect the member before they transferred out. Other than that, there is a 60-day limit because, again, scams normally require you to transfer your money very quickly.

I hope that there may be some consideration of the importance of this protection and the use of Pension Wise in the way that it was originally intended. As we look to introduce a new Pension Schemes Act, we might find ways in which we can enhance the consumer protection that I know my noble friend understands is so important.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of protecting people’s pensions. We have touched upon a number of issues surrounding the same sort of concepts during debate on the Bill and in other legislation, such as financial guidance provisions. We should see whether we cannot get together a comprehensive note of how these things are covered. I am bound to say I am unclear as to what is and is not covered in all circumstances, so it seems that would be beneficial.

Concerning the specifics of the amendment, we clearly give it broad support. It raises practical issues, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would identify, particularly on responding to approved questions. I am not sure who is on hand when the questions are being asked. We have seen what happened with taxi licences and such things in the past. The provision could give rise to challenges but the thrust is right: it is another attempt to make sure that people are aware of the consequences of what they do, to the fullest extent possible. As I say, I am not sure whether we have a comprehensive arrangement yet across all pensions and circumstances. It seems that it would be worth some effort to try to get that into place. With those words, I am happy to it give broad support. When the Minister replies, I am sure there will be some stumbling blocks in it but if we do not keep pushing and shoving, we are not going to make progress on this.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling this amendment because it provides me with an opportunity to update the Committee on the progress that the Department for Work and Pensions, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Money and Pensions Service have made on delivering the stronger nudge to pensions guidance. As noble Lords are aware, this is a requirement of Sections 18 and 19 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.

Before that, however, I would like to talk briefly about the take-up of Pension Wise guidance, which is a very positive story. The service is on target to exceed 200,000 guidance sessions this financial year, more than tripling those in its first year of operation. Recent Financial Conduct Authority data suggests that 52% of personal and stakeholder pensions accessed for the first time in 2018-19 received either regulated advice or Pension Wise guidance. That clearly demonstrates that the work the Money and Pensions Service, Government and the industry are already doing to promote both Pension Wise guidance and regulated financial advice is working.

I would like to talk about the measures in the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 which were designed to further increase the take-up of Pension Wise guidance. Sections 18 and 19 require the Government to deliver a stronger nudge to pensions guidance. As the Committee is aware, MaPS is testing options for the best way to do that, in a way that complements the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, during the passage of the Act that his amendment was

“designed to be a nudge, rather than any kind of probably unenforceable or counterproductive compulsion.”—[Official Report, 31/10/17; col. 1294.]

As noble Lords are also aware, the drafting of Sections 18 and 19 was influenced by the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Following trials, those sections will deliver a final nudge to consumers to consider taking guidance prior to accessing their pension.

The Government firmly believe that, to effectively prompt more people to take guidance before accessing their pension where it is appropriate, we need to understand the impact of the nudge, and ensure that we avoid creating perverse incentives. We do not disagree with the principles of the amendment—work is already under way to establish how best to ensure that people thinking about accessing their pensions are encouraged to take guidance. We believe it is essential to use the evidence base that the trials on a stronger nudge will provide, and to consult before implementing the primary legislation in the Act. We would welcome the thoughts of the noble Lord and my noble friend on the proposals in the consultation.

The trials to test the most effective way to deliver on Sections 18 and 19 are due to conclude shortly, and an evaluation report is expected to be published by MaPS this summer. We are working to deliver on the requirements of the Act as quickly as possible, and as such we are already preparing for a public consultation this year. The Financial Conduct Authority will also consult on rules that have regard to these regulations, to make sure that there is consistency between occupational pensions and personal and stakeholder pensions.

The noble Lord seeks to require a member to provide responses to questions before a transfer can proceed. The effect of the amendment is that trustees would have the power to refuse a transfer should members’ responses not meet the conditions which the amendment proposes should be set in regulations. I assure him that the Government are already introducing conditions that seek to safeguard members against the risk of being defrauded. That change will strengthen trustees’ discretion in respect of transfers. Transfers were discussed in the earlier debate on Clause 124. The Government are amending members’ statutory right to transfer, to allow conditions to be imposed for transfers between schemes. That is aimed at ensuring that transfers are made to safe destinations. Non-statutory transfers can still take place, if the scheme rules allow. However, the amendment puts responsibility on members, not trustees, to assess the appropriateness of the receiving scheme. If the questions to be asked of members are specified in regulations, as proposed new subsection (1)(c) requires, an unintended consequence could be that fraudsters will be enabled to game the system. Members could be coached to provide answers that lead to transfers that should have been refused.

As noble Lords will recall, we have banned cold calling on pensions in legislation and established Project Bloom: a joint task force between government, regulators and law enforcement to share intelligence, raise awareness of scams through communications campaigns, and take enforcement action when appropriate. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator launched the latest ScamSmart advertising campaign on 1 July 2019, which has targeted those approaching retirement, as they were identified as being most at risk from scammers. There is also an FCA warning list, an online tool that helps investors check if a firm is operating with the right authorisation and find out more about risks associated with investment.

The noble Lord raised a specific concern about transferring out of DB schemes. Since January 2018, following its work on the British Steel pension scheme, the FCA has been working closely with both the Pensions Regulator and the Money and Pensions Service to ensure that it monitors pension transfer activity in DB pension schemes that might be subject to increased transfer activity. Also since January 2018, the FCA has issued tripartite letters to over 50 defined benefit pension scheme trustees. The tripartite letter reminds scheme trustees of their responsibilities when issuing transfer values to members and requests them to provide data that allows it to monitor scheme activity. On 21 January 2019, the FCA published a new protocol for how the three organisations—the FCA, TPR and MaPS—will work together to share information and work with pension scheme trustees, and that protocol addresses many of the recommendations made in the Rookes report.

I want to touch on one other point raised briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. He suggested that the new pension freedoms might be encouraging people to draw down savings too fast, putting them at risk of scams. In fact, the Financial Conduct Authority’s Retirement Outcomes Review did not find significant evidence of consumers drawing down their savings too fast. The study’s findings, published in June 2018, found that most of those withdrawing had some other form of retirement income or wealth.

Clearly, it is of the utmost importance that information and guidance are available to people and that they are aware of it. That is why there are now more opportunities for people to access guidance earlier in the pensions journey. Alongside the stronger final nudge trials, Pension Wise continues to run successful advertising campaigns across multiple channels, as well as working with employers nationally and locally to encourage them to engage with their employees at their place of work. The Financial Conduct Authority’s “wake-up” packs also encourage people to think about their pension options and include signposting to Pension Wise.

I reassure noble Lords that we are very aware of the importance of the need to make progress with implementing the requirements placed on government, the Money and Pensions Service and the Financial Conduct Authority, as set out in the Act. Our aim is to find an effective and proportionate way to do this.

To conclude, I accept that this work might not have progressed as quickly as perhaps noble Lords would like, but that is for a good reason. I believe it is very important to get this right and ensure that the policy is developed based on evidence. We always talk about evidence-based policy and this is a classic example of that. The trials will conclude very shortly and will be followed by an evaluation report. We will consult this year and will seek to lay regulations as soon as possible after that, alongside the rules that will be made by the Financial Conduct Authority.

For the reasons I have explained, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the knowledgeable contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and at long last to get a debate on this issue, some six years, as others have said, after the study group was set up by our two Houses. Even on the fastest programme now on the table, the vital work of restoring and renewing this place will not be complete until the late 2020s or early 2030s, which will be way beyond my 15-years use-by date. I propose to be brief in my contribution, but I want to place on record my support for the proposition which involves the full and timely decant of the Palace, both Houses, the undertaking of a substantial programme of restoration and renewal, but with the guarantee that both Houses will return to their historic Chambers when the work is complete.

In doing so, and with some considerable trepidation, I express a tinge of regret that no wider consideration was given to the building of a new permanent home for Parliament away from Westminster and the long-term possibilities that this might have presented for disseminating power, influence and economic resource more widely in our country. However, I accept that this is off the agenda and, if for no reason other than self-preservation, I shall not press the point further.

The need for a major programme is abundantly clear from the various reports that have been presented to us. The scale of what confronts us is in no small measure the consequences of past neglect—decades of neglect when we have considered it safe to put off vital works. The benefits of what is proposed cannot be denied: reducing the current high risk of fire; removing the risks caused by asbestos; and significant improvements in disabled access being but some. Alongside those are the preservation of a UNESCO world heritage site, improvements in energy efficiency, the opportunity to develop apprenticeships and specialist skills for those engaged in the work and a better working environment for those charged with operating the systems on which we depend.

I also hope that we will create a more efficient place for us to do business—no more unseemly scrambling across the Chamber to vote, ending up on the lap of someone to whom one has hardly been introduced.

In terms of governance, the model of a sponsor board and a delivery authority has worked elsewhere, and I see no reason why it should not be adopted for this project. If it is to follow the example of the Olympics, it might aspire also to match their exemplary health and safety record.

The Government have focused on the importance of value for money, and that is right. However, they may see what lessons might be learned from the works at Old Palace Yard, by all accounts a not inexpensive project but one where the heating system still does not function properly.

We parliamentarians—MPs and Lords—are a minority of those who work in and use this building. As the programme proceeds, the engagement of those who work here too will be vital, as will an ongoing communication programme. What consultation has taken place to date more widely on these proposals? As my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, what about those who support us in a variety of ways, whose services may not be needed or possible for a time when we decant—how do we engage with them?

It seems that whatever the future plans, we will remain in this building for a few years longer, so how safe are we? The Members’ FAQs included in the Library pack include at item 8 some of the “incidents of failure” that have occurred in recent times. They range from minor issues such as broken door handles to:

“Some 60 incidents that had the potential to cause a serious fire”.


Both Houses have a combined health and safety policy, last updated in May last year. Notwithstanding that the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act are not legally binding on the Palace, the authorities have stated that they will treat them as though they were. Perhaps the Leader can confirm that that is still the case. The policy provides for the involvement of trade union safety reps—how many are there currently? It also asserts that the authorities are working with the HSE to develop,

“a suitable inspection and enforcement protocol”.

It seems to be the case that whereas HSE inspectors will,

“usually be permitted onto the Parliamentary Estate to exercise their enforcement powers in relation to contractors and sub-contractors working on the Estate … All other requests by HSE to exercise its inspection and enforcement powers … will be considered on a case by case basis by the Head of Parliamentary Safety”.

Why is there this different approach? Have any such requests been refused and, if so, in what circumstances? Perhaps the Leader can also say something about the Commons and Lords policies with regard to building control regulations and who provides the building control service.

We have a free vote on this matter, and I propose to follow the path of the Joint Committee. I will support the decanting of both Houses to separate buildings on a temporary basis and a return to this building by both Houses as quickly as possible—even though I may view it on the television from the sedentary position of my armchair.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, much has been said already in what was an extensive and intensive debate yesterday, and like many of those who spoke in that debate I was and remain profoundly saddened by the outcome of the referendum. We are unpicking some 40 years of history, which by and large has fostered prosperity, developed co-operation on vital matters such as climate change, and inculcated the concepts of a social charter and structural funds to help poorer countries and regions to grow more prosperous. It has kept us safer through co-operation on law enforcement and counterterrorism and has fostered peace in Europe throughout my lifetime.

We are now being asked to withdraw from all this and to step away from the single market and the customs union with no certainty about what arrangements will replace them. It is not an inviting prospect for us in Luton at a time when General Motors’ proposed disposal of its European operations could leave the Vauxhall operation outside arrangements that allow goods to move freely within its main market without tariffs, quotas or routine customs control. The uncertainty about whether the UK will have continued membership of the European common aviation area is also not helpful to an airport-based economy, and it is certainly not helped by a slowdown in growth.

Of course, responsibility for this mess, which is what I believe it is, rests squarely with David Cameron. He gambled that a referendum would heal the split in his party but has ended up splitting the country. History will rightly judge him harshly.

As the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution set out,

“neither the question put to the electorate, nor the provisions of the Act under which the referendum took place, set out how or when withdrawal should take place in the event of a vote to leave”.

What Parliament enacted may have been a clear proposition—yes or no, in or out—but it was deficient in setting down how any mandate arising from the referendum would be taken forward; what, if any, feedback, decision-making or further endorsement should follow.

There are myriad consequences and issues arising from leaving the EU, including the need to incorporate some 5,000 pieces of directly applicable legislation into UK law. Many of the options are mutually exclusive. If Parliament did not originally spell out a process for dealing with the mandate, it is right for Parliament and the Government to take up the reins now. But I would argue that we need to be cautious about suggesting that this is all down to the choice of the people rather than down to the consequences of the clear choice that they made to leave the EU. We are dealing here with choices of government, and these should not be sacrosanct.

One of the most profound choices that the Government are seeking to make is to eschew membership of the single market and the customs union. They are prepared to sacrifice these at the altar of reducing immigration, notwithstanding research, most recently from the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, again showing the benefits to national income, taxes and the budget deficit from immigration, and notwithstanding a report from the think tank Global Future that suggests that the Government’s approach could mean a fall in current net levels of immigration of no more than 15%, and that might be reduced further by the terms of new free trade agreements, which typically come with a demand for liberalisation on free movement.

I join others—and will vote with them—on insisting that the Government settle immediately the legal rights of EU nationals living in the UK, although I note the press reports that highlight potential practical difficulties with systems in administering a cut-off point. Is this right? The Government’s prevarication over this is cruel, given the substantial contribution that these communities have made to the UK. From local experience, I know the value of that contribution.

The alternative on offer to the single market is some vague prospect of,

“the freest and most frictionless trade possible”.

The OBR’s judgment, we heard yesterday, is consistent, it says, with most external studies that say that any likely Brexit outcome will lead to lower trade flows, lower investment, lower net inward migration and lower potential output. All this has adverse implications for the public finances and our social security system and will add some £60 billion of additional borrowing over the next five years. We know who bears the brunt of worsening economic outcomes under this Government.

As others have said, the White Paper sets out a framework for a deal that hardly amounts to a blueprint. Even if it did, these matters have to be agreed with our European partners. Article 50, once triggered, does not put us in the driving seat; for all practical purposes, it means that we leave the EU whether or not we have agreement. Transitional arrangements may well be in point, but these will presumably be subject to the ongoing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Complying with this Bill means an uncertain destination but no way back. That is the magnitude of the decision that we are making over the next few weeks. For me this is therefore a difficult choice between supporting what I believe is right for our country and the collision with the limits of our constitutional duty. I have to accept that the combination of the referendum result and the decision of the other place should prevail. However, we should push our authority to the limit in challenging the Government on their proposed deal. Seeking to ensure protection of workers’ rights, justice for EU nationals living in the UK, maximising free access to the market, sustaining our historic ties with Ireland and much more is one way in which we can salvage something from this process.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender]

I thank the noble Baroness for that mini-filibuster to help me. I raised concerns about vulnerable tenants in the context of this policy change in Committee. The amendments would ensure that, in addition to contacting the tenant, where there was a person, a charity or a housing authority that had paid or contributed to the deposit, they would be contacted, too. So the amendments are aimed in particular at those tenants who are vulnerable and already known to charities or local authorities. This is critical because, as we all know—especially those of us who have debated the Bill for several hours—the end of a private tenancy is now the most common cause of statutory homelessness, accounting for 31% of all households accepted as homeless in England and 42% in London.

In the majority of cases where the landlord requires a deposit from the tenant, they will have paid the deposit themselves—but that will not always be the case. Sometimes the deposit will have been paid by a relative or an employer, but in many cases, in order to ensure that vulnerable people have access to the private rented sector, local housing authorities and charities will pay the deposit on behalf of the tenant. These amendments would ensure that, where the deposit had been paid by a third party and the landlord had commenced the abandonment proceedings, when they sent written notices to the tenant they would also have to notify the deposit payer. The deposit payer could therefore stop the process by confirming in writing to the landlord that the property had not been abandoned or by making a contribution towards the rent, which could be a nominal sum.

The amendments would provide additional protection to a vulnerable tenant who, for any reason, was unable to respond directly to the landlord. An example, which we discussed in Committee, is someone with mental health issues who is known to a charity, which has paid or contributed to that tenant’s deposit. The charity would be able to get involved at an early stage and, if necessary, put a stop to the abandonment process. In effect, if the local authority, charity or any other person who had paid the deposit confirmed that the property had not been abandoned, that would bring the abandonment process to an end.

The amendments were tabled as a result of an extremely helpful meeting with the Minister and I thank her for that. She showed clear understanding of and compassion for the vulnerable tenants I have described and an understanding of the need to ensure that a third party is involved in the process. I also thank the Minister’s officials for engaging in discussions about the best way to deal with abandonment while protecting the most vulnerable.

We on these Benches are not able to support Amendment 40 in this group because we believe that it would add a layer of bureaucracy without swiftly ending the abandonment procedure, which a third party could do under all the other amendments in this group.

Shelter and Citizens Advice originally highlighted the potential problems for vulnerable tenants in this part of the legislation. While they continue to have one or two misgivings about the clause, they are both very happy with this change. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments but will also take the opportunity to raise a drafting point which I do not think has been addressed in the Bill following Committee; nor indeed is it addressed by this amendment. In short, I am unconvinced that the legislation as it stands always supports the warning notice timetable set out by the Government. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss this matter with officials and for her follow-up letter of 4 April with the attached flow chart, but I fear that my concern has been inadequately expressed and continues to fall on stony ground.

The issue is in fact very straightforward and relates to when the unpaid rent condition is met—particularly, say, where rent is payable monthly in advance. For the purposes of the Bill, when no rent at all has been paid since the end of, say, month three, is the unpaid rent condition met on day two of month five or only at the end of that month? If the latter, I have no issue with the Government’s analysis. However, I took from our meeting with officials that the former was the case, and in those circumstances the second warning notice could be given in a little over 31 days from the start of month four in this example, and the first warning notice from day five of that month, which would enable the notice bringing the tenancy to an end to be served at just after eight weeks rather than the suggested 12 weeks.

I am not seeking to be difficult on this matter but, if it is agreed that there is a lack of clarity, it would seem to make sense to put matters beyond doubt either by a simple amendment from the Government at Third Reading or at least in some guidance.

Housing

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take in the light of the housebuilding data for the quarter to March 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the Government are already taking action. The housing strategy launched in November last year announced an ambitious measure to boost house- building substantially, including a £1.3 billion investment to get Britain building and plans to deliver up to 170,000 affordable homes. We are releasing public sector land for up to 100,000 new homes and helping buyers through the NewBuy scheme.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which I suggest is massively complacent but surpassed by Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, who is on record as saying that “Building more homes” in this country,

“is the gold standard upon which we shall be judged”.

Yet there were just 109,000 completions in England in 2011—the second lowest total of any year since 1946. Seasonally adjusted housing starts to March 2012 were 11% below the December quarter and, for the year to March 2012, 6% below the previous year. Things are getting worse not better while homelessness and rough sleeping are increasing—even without further housing benefit cuts coming down the track—and private sector rents are rising. At a time when the construction sector needs work, people need jobs and families need homes, what are the Government going to do to step up to the challenge?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the housing strategy steps up precisely to the challenge. Some of the completions depend, of course, on when the start was and not all the starts were since 2010, so the previous programme had some effect on the programme now. However, the Government are determined that there will be a big boost to housing starts, to affordable housing and to private housing. There will be support for that in the programmes that we have outlined. By the time the spending review is completed there will be, as I said, 170,000 new affordable homes built.

Business of the House

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” to the end and insert “it is desirable that the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill should go through its legislative stages in a timetable which allows this House to scrutinise the provisions of the Bill and allows both Houses to pass the Bill without recourse to enactment under section 1 of the Parliament Act 1911”.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to enable your Lordships to have a proper Committee stage of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill rather than just the usual, truncated process with, in effect, only a Second Reading, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Indeed, I thought that the latter part of the noble Lord’s contribution was, frankly, unworthy. I had hoped that he would deal with the issue on the basis of the argument advanced. This is not a wheeze; it is not a ploy; it is not mischief making or opportunism. The amendment would require a timetable in which consideration of the Bill was concluded within one month of its introduction into your Lordships’ House, which in effect means by the time that the Commons rises for Christmas.

The Bill has been certified as a money Bill by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The amendment seeks not to challenge that certification but to deal with the consequences of the Bill’s being so designated. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that we have not sought to do so in similar debates on recent Bills that have gone through your Lordships’ House. Indeed we have not—as he outlined, I participated in such a debate just last week—but this is a different Bill. We are trying to achieve a Committee stage only for the Bill before us.

The noble Lord rightly cited the Parliament Act, but the Companion says:

“If a money bill, which has been passed by the Commons and sent up to the Lords at least one month before the end of a session, is not passed by the Lords without amendment within a month after it is sent to them, the bill shall, unless the Commons direct to the contrary, be presented for Royal Assent without the consent of the Lords. This does not debar the Lords from amending such bills provided they are passed within the month, but the Commons are not obliged to consider the amendments”.

Why on earth the noble Lord seeks to pre-empt what we might do—whether the Bill might be amended if we had a Committee stage, and indeed what the Commons’ reaction to that might be—is a little strange. We do not see the Committee process as having no point.

The Bill will do three things: it will stop any further government contributions to child trust funds; it will end the savings gateway; and it will abolish the health in pregnancy grant. It was somewhat surprising to us that a Bill of this nature was designated as a money Bill, particularly given that the setting up of each of these arrangements was by way of separate primary legislation that included all the usual stages in your Lordships’ House. It was also a surprise to our colleagues in another place. A reading of their proceedings will illustrate their clear belief that there would be the opportunity to continue to advance the argument for some changes to the Bill at this end and, in so far as I can tell, the Minister, Mr Hoban, did not offer a contrary view.

The Bill’s being certified as a money Bill denies this House the full opportunity to bring its knowledge and experience to bear on major matters of social policy concerning poverty, family and child welfare and the health of pregnant women. I do not propose to speak in detail to the range of issues that might be raised in Committee, but I will say that that particularly denies the opportunity to develop and amend how the Bill impacts on looked-after children. For example, the position of looked-after children has been the subject of ongoing discussion, initiated by Paul Goggins MP, about the hiatus between the abolition of child trust funds and the promised introduction of junior ISAs. That is very much work in progress. The discussion, involving the Minister, recognised that looked-after children have only the state or their corporate parent to make the equivalent of parental contributions to these savings vehicles.

As we know, it is often the case that issues emerge during the consideration of legislation in another place. Amendments may be proposed, arguments advanced and rebuffed and then reconsidered and reformulated for consideration here. Knowing that there can be a second bite at the cherry—a chance for some reflection, challenge and consensus building—has proved an important element in improving legislation. We know that some stakeholders are particularly frustrated at knowing late in the day that the House of Commons was possibly their only chance to improve legislation. Noble Lords may have heard from Action for Children, Barnardo’s, the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, Gingerbread and the Family and Parenting Institute. We are seeking the opportunity for the Bill to have a proper Committee stage so that those matters that some consider to be unfinished business can be properly examined. The rules allow it; we know it must be done expeditiously in order not to fall foul of the one-month rule; and we would co-operate in the timely scheduling of the Bill’s stages.

This matter raises a broader issue. As I have made clear, we do not seek to challenge today a certification of the Speaker, but we need to understand it and its possible future ramifications for our deliberations. We understand that this is a money Bill because, although the setting up of child trust funds, the savings gateway and the health in pregnancy grant were matters of policy, a parliamentary measure that only withdraws funding for them is a money Bill, notwithstanding the fact that removing funding involves prioritisation—and therefore policy changes—and will bring to an end these particular policy mechanisms. We fear that such designation paves the way for the Government to rely on the cloak of deficit reduction in a way that would deny your Lordships the opportunity fully to scrutinise swathes of policy, from the withdrawal of education maintenance allowance to changes to the benefits system. That would deny this House what it does best. This is a matter to reflect on both here and in another place.

For today, we simply ask to have the opportunity to have a proper Committee stage on a Bill that has significant social policy ramifications. If we cannot achieve even that, what hope is there for the future? Let me be clear that the amendment seeks not to challenge the Speaker’s decision—the amendment accepts the decision—but to apply to the full, and without expanding, the restricted opportunities available to this House when dealing with a money Bill. The amendment does not seek to frustrate the timetable of the Government. If we do not pass this Bill by Christmas Recess, the Bill will go for Royal Assent anyway. The amendment would not undermine the thrust of the Government’s deficit reduction plan, whatever our disagreement with that plan. This is about us—all parties and none—having a chance to input into important policy changes that will affect the lives of many young people and families. That is, after all, why we are here. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I support my noble friend. I do not want to go over the ground that he has laid out on why, on this particular measure, he is not challenging the Speaker’s ruling that this is a money Bill, even though I find it very difficult to understand why a policy established by primary legislation requiring expenditure could then be revoked under the description of a money Bill. I say this because almost every piece of social security legislation could in future fall under the remit of being labelled a money Bill and therefore not available for debate or scrutiny in this House.

Let me give two examples, in which I suggest that this House has more experience and more to offer on this debate than most other agendas, and probably more than the other place. We know, for example, that there is a question over whether the mobility component for people in long-term residential care will be removed. In previous debates my noble friend Lady Wilkins and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, spoke passionately about that. Such a move would remove money resulting from a policy established in primary legislation back in 1992, by the then Government, which we all supported. Under this precedent, that could be labelled a money Bill, and notwithstanding the expertise of this House in disability matters, about which this House feels very strongly indeed, we would not be permitted to debate it. It not just about this House and about Parliament—hundreds of thousands of disabled people would be affected as a result.

In another example, a week or two ago I led a debate on housing. There were half a dozen of us on these Benches, half a dozen from the Lib Dem Benches, who made very powerful speeches, half a dozen from the Cross Benches, and one person, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, from the Conservative Benches. We analysed forensically the issues associated with changes in housing, and I welcome the fact that the Government appear to be listening to some of those concerns. In future, if this is a precedent, nearly all those issues that we debated would be, and could be, classified as a part of a money Bill and not available for this House to discuss, explore, revise and, if necessary, to ask the other place to think again about.

This is extraordinarily dangerous. There is hardly any piece of government policy that does not involve expenditure. This means that, in theory, almost every piece of policy could be regarded as a money Bill and this House would be denied scrutiny of it. I have given just two examples from social security but it could affect a lot of local government funding as well. I hope that your Lordships will today accept my noble friend’s amendment; and that perhaps consultations could take place between the two Houses to make sure that the other House realises the seriousness of the precedent that could be set, and that we would be walking away from a major part of our responsibility to the public we seek to serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I suppose it was because Mr Speaker was not advised by his Clerks that it was a money Bill. If it had been a money Bill, we would have disposed of it rather more quickly than we did.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this debate has been interesting, but mostly not about the substance of the amendment that was moved. Most noble Lords, I think, were exercised about the definition of a money Bill. I made clear when I moved my amendment that, except for the purposes of the amendment, it has been certified a money Bill, and I do not seek to challenge that, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, suggested.

On the definition of a money Bill, the preamble to the bit about taxation et cetera talks about measures that contain “only provisions dealing with” certain issues. One of the points that arise from this particular example is whether the ability to corral a few things that are only about taxation, and not to have them as you might naturally otherwise have them—as part of a broader Bill—opens up the possibility of getting more money Bills certified than would otherwise be the case. However, I agree with the range of speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Grenfell and Lord Elystan-Morgan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—who say that it would be good to have some sort of process to try and better understand when a money Bill is a money Bill and what the rules are that apply to that.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that this is all a waste of time and that it is pointless, but if he read the 2007 version of the Companion, he would see that paragraph 7.189, on money Bills, says:

“On a few occasions minor amendments have been made by the Lords to such bills and have been accepted by the Commons”.

This presumption that it is all a waste of time, that nothing could ever happen that could change the Bill, is simply not the case. Even if it were, if it was felt that matters should be pressed on the Government in relation to a Bill, why should we not avail ourselves of the opportunity to do so? I stress that my amendment does not seek to change the rules at all or to say that the House of Commons Speaker was wrong in certifying it as a money Bill; it merely seeks to take advantage of what the Companion enables us to do as a House.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that she did not understand if this did not lead anywhere. In any event—this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as well—we will have a full day on a Second Reading debate. However, there is a difference between a debate on the Bill at Second Reading and in Committee, as all noble Lords know. The Committee stage is an iterative process, a chance to press the Minister in detail on a range of points. A one-day Second Reading does not provide the same facility. It provides an opportunity for some broad debate but not for the detailed scrutiny that we believe this Bill requires.

As ever, my noble friend Lady Hollis got it absolutely right; if we do not take this opportunity to try to secure at least a Committee stage on this money Bill, what hope is there for dealing with a raft of very profound provisions coming down the track that the Government would corral in such a way that the Speaker would designate them money Bills?

I believe that the Deputy Chief Whip wishes to speak.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, we have a medical emergency in one of the Division Lobbies. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in the circumstances, it is time to bring this to a close. I do so by reiterating that my amendment is not about challenging the decision of the Speaker—it accepts it. It simply seeks to take the full range of opportunities, in so far as they exist, to scrutinise this Bill, given that it is and has been designated a money Bill. It does not frustrate the Government’s timetable because, if we do not get it through within a month of arrival in your Lordships’ House, it goes for Royal Assent in any event.

Given the substance of the Bill, this is a very small ask of your Lordships’ House, and I believe we ought to take this opportunity to have a full Committee stage on this Bill. Given the debate, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.