Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and I wholeheartedly support the points my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord Hutton and the right reverend Prelate have raised. The Government are reserving the right to defer but, of course, making it more expensive. I think the savings the Government ultimately get from this are in the order of £300 million, because it is going to be dealt with on an actuarial basis rather than the current way. I do not know if it is possible to split the saving between that resulting from the denial of the lump sum and that which is otherwise simply a result of the different actuarial calculation. It would be helpful to have that split, if it could be done. We await the final rates, which are going to be dealt with in regulations.

The issue about lump sums is very important. We need to think about people who might have a health impairment. There is no impaired annuity equivalent under state provision, so far as I am aware. Surviving spouses cannot inherit increments arising from deferral, as I understand it, but they can, of course, inherit a cash sum that has been saved.

The point has been made about the equivalence between the private sector and the state sector. Many people to date have not accessed private savings. Thank goodness auto-enrolment is in place now, courtesy of my noble friend Lord Hutton, who was Secretary of State when big advances were made on that. Over time, people will get better private sector provision and that will provide them with an opportunity many of them do not currently have to access a lump sum.

Can the Minister say what this all means for the public finances? I presume a lump sum paid on day one in a sense scores against public finances in that year while a deferred amount does not score until it is received, and is then received at a higher rate going forward. I do not know whether this is part of the Government’s considerations, but I hope not because I think it would be modest at best.

There are also differences in relation to pension credit. A modest capital sum is ignored for pension credit but, of course, a supplement and income increase arising from deferral would not be. That would be a further denial and scraping away of benefits from these provisions. I very much support the point that no great rationale has been advanced why the lump sum and other deferments should be denied and I hope we can agree across the Room that it should be reinstated in the Bill.

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, will not detain the Committee very long. When we go through a Bill, there is always something that comes up quite unexpectedly. My noble friend Lady Hollis has alighted on one here, which I do not think is going to go away. If we are not able to progress it at this level, perhaps we shall need to return to it later in the debate on the Bill.

I do not know where the Government have the mandate for this, but it is there now. They are understandably trying to look at pensions as a whole, and saving for retirement, hopefully through a personal pension scheme and through the state scheme. We would support that. However, it is taking a very different principle to the one that applies in private schemes. It will only apply, of course, where the individual says, “I am going to defer my pension”. It is not a case of saying, “I want to take some of my pension in a lump sum”. It is also taking choice away from people. You cannot say, on the one hand, that we want people to have choice, to save and to be in charge of their own income when they retire, and do everything you can to encourage them, but then, in this particular aspect, say, “No, we the state know better than you do”. Even if the Minister cannot do so today, I hope he will be able to reflect on this and give due consideration to making some movement in the Bill on it.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, some years ago I was chair of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and I saw the way that wives were discriminated against. I remember one case. We went to Belize, where the commanding officer had been offered promotion conditional on his wife accompanying him. She was a very successful lawyer in London and they had to make a decision. She decided to give up her career. While she was abroad—a two-year posting—she was unable to contribute to a private pension fund because she was not doing recognised work. She was working as his partner in Belize on behalf of the British people looking after Army wives. She gave up her career and she lost the opportunity of a good private pension here as she could not contribute because she was not working in this country. She was also losing out at the end of her life because she could not contribute to the state pension scheme either. The changes made in 2010 helped, but this Bill will almost send us backwards. The changes made by my Government in 2010 did not fully resolve this issue. That is one case.

Among the officer cadre in all three services you still find wives giving up their job to accompany their husband, and they get a very raw deal. Until recently, other ranks would have gone to Germany for a two-year posting, and they, too, would lose out. Under the Armed Forces covenant and the updated report issued only this week by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, it is taken into account that we should be looking after families. I have no idea what it would cost and I cannot imagine that it would cost an awful lot of money, but maybe the Minister can help us. As my noble friend says, this may not be the way of dealing with the problem, but somehow it has to be recognised that, in bringing in a Bill that has cross-party support and in general terms is certainly advantageous for most, if not all, women, here we have a group who will continue to lose out, despite the changes that are being made. So it is with a deal of pleasure that I support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will agree to go back and look at the issue. Perhaps he will come up with something that may not use this wording but which recognises the contribution that these women have to make—and, indeed, by which they lose out when they help their husband’s career, because the post requires accompaniment. If that solicitor, going back those few years, had said, “No, I’m not giving up my career”, the husband would have had to refuse that promotion. There are parts of the Armed Forces where the divorce rate is higher than normal. I am not suggesting that this is the only reason, but I think that it is perhaps one of a whole number of reasons, stress and overreach being another couple.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friends and the thrust of this amendment. I should like to ask one or two questions. As I understand it, there is currently a class 1 credit going to people in this service category, which helps to build up not only pensions but access to contributory benefits such as JSA and ESA. In respect of the latter, there is also an easement that was introduced in 2011 in respect of the first contribution condition, because for contributory ESA and JSA you need both to pay an amount in a certain period of time and to have sufficient credit. My first question is whether that credit arrangement is going to continue under the new regime and whether the easement will be continued, because that is important, too.

Of course, the credit has to be claimed; it is not automatic. I wonder whether we could do something to address that issue, because we have a group of people here who would qualify only under certain clear conditions, and one would have thought that arrangements for these individuals could somehow be organised centrally, or perhaps by the separate Armed Forces, so that the information goes in directly and there is an automatic credit, rather than people having to claim. I understand that the take-up is limited at the moment, with only 601 applications in 2012-13, or maybe in the previous year. That is not as many as one might have expected. Perhaps we could also have clarification as to who is treated as a member of the Armed Forces for these purposes. I am not sure that the TA or reserves will be included within this.

This issue draws a wider question about crediting national insurance contributions. My understanding, based on some helpful information from the Bill team this morning, is that if, at the moment, you are in a category of benefit or activity that gave rise to a class 1 credit, that would continue post-April 2016. If you are receiving a class 3 benefit for a particular activity or being in a particular position, that would become a class 3 contribution credit also, under the new regime. So nothing has changed in that respect. These things are important, because a class 3 contribution builds up entitlement only to the state pension and bereavement benefits, not to contributory benefits. This gives rise to the broader question of universal credit. At the moment, if you are on JSA or ESA, you would get a class 1 credit. In the world of universal credit, my understanding is that you would get a class 3 credit, which means that you do not build up entitlement thereby to contributory JSA and ESA, which sit outside universal credit.

I apologise for this rather convoluted series of questions, but this very important issue prompts them, and it would be useful to have clarification on them either today or later by correspondence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I hesitate to follow those two powerful speeches, but I wanted to ask the Minister a question around RTI. It is understood that, so long as an employer has a PAYE system, RTI requires reporting of all earnings whether or not the individuals are earning each week at a rate in excess of the LEL. That would not apply to an employer where all employees were below the threshold and nobody was issued with a tax code. We are now in a position whereby, at least in theory, HMRC has within its system details of earnings per paid period of each employee with each employer. Even if that is not the basis of a calculation, it would at least provide a basis on which individual claims might be verified. That seems a potential change that ought to help with this important issue.

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee long except to give my support to this. It is quite interesting that the changes that HMRC has carried out actually help this particular argument. The situation as it stands is completely counterintuitive to what the Government are trying to achieve, which is that we all save while we are working so that when we retire we have built up a state pension. If people do not have a state pension, they will be reliant on welfare benefits, or whatever the Government of the day decide. So it is a matter of independence.

My noble friend Lady Drake is so right: women find it offensive that they are excluded from contributing when they are able to towards their own pension. I said “women” deliberately, because the nature of work today will change that argument. Since the recession, we have seen more and more men also working part time. So what has been traditionally an argument on equality for women is being diluted by the nature of work in the country today. The argument that we are putting forward is not just for women—it is for citizens who may, by force of circumstance or choice, have more than one job.

The Inland Revenue has no problem in finding solutions to quite complex issues when it comes to collecting tax, and this goes hand in hand with that. Citing the excuse or reason that it is very complex and impossible to do is wearing very thin. Given the remit to do it, I am sure that the Revenue would have to find a way through. The issue is not going to go away; it will be raised at every opportunity, and it is one that runs four-square with what the Bill is trying to achieve, which is for us all to contribute to a state pension while we are working.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, this has been quite a long discussion but I would say that its impact on our communities is as important as what we have been discussing in this House over the past two weeks.

Of all the government cuts, the ones in this area are probably the cruellest. They affect people’s homes, where they live and how they live, and how communities operate. Indeed, if a decision in this House were based on merit, the Motions of my noble friend Lord Knight would carry the day in this Chamber. The Minister may have the comfort of getting votes from those around him but I cannot convince myself that all members of the coalition—I am looking particularly at the Liberal Democrat Benches—are sitting comfortably while supporting this policy. That is based on the many debates that we have had in this House in the nearly 20 years in which I have been a Member.

I can picture a House that did not have a coalition but would be faced with support from the Lib Dem Members. It is also telling that the Minister, who I know will put up a brave fight for his Government’s policy, must be feeling very isolated. Not one member of the coalition has stood up in this debate in support of the Government’s policy. I think that speaks volumes about the many Members on the Benches opposite.

I will support, and I hope the Minister will support, the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has enormous experience and knowledge of the housing sector and communities. In this rather lengthy debate, we have not covered other areas of the impact of this policy. Naturally, the House has as a priority the impact on single parents and other people in our community who have the narrowest shoulders with which to bear the implications. However, I suggest that this has enormous economic implications, too. We have a shortage of housing in this country; the impact of this policy will be that, in three or four years’ time, that shortage will have increased and will be extremely costly to rectify.

It also means, without being too emotional about it, the increasing ghettoisation in our cities, London most of all. How will our businesses be able easily to get labour when many people in their community have had to move outside of the city because they could not afford the rents inside? So this is a very far-reaching policy; it is not about simply taking an average of £9 out of someone’s weekly income. It has a much more far-reaching impact than that.

I hope that the Minister will accept the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Best—second best though it may be, and I think it is. The wording is quite specific, and I know the department will carry out a review annually: that is its responsibility. But the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Best, covers quite specific areas: children, homelessness and the resources that local authorities can allocate to this important area.

If a citizen does not have a home, he does not have anything. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and that this House, operating at its best, as it usually does, will monitor the policy very closely and debate it as often as is necessary, until we rectify some of the cruelty we now face.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I support the two Motions moved by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth and that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The noble Lord, Lord Best, anticipates a significant statement from the Minister, and I look forward to that as well. If it were to signify the withdrawal of these orders at the twelfth hour, the Minister would become an even greater national treasure than that described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, but I do not hold my breath.

My noble friend was right to signify that he was not going to press his Motions. In many ways, it would be good to test the view of the House to see if we could stop these orders in their tracks, but I think it has helped the tenor of our debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has said. Of course, if we did defeat the orders, we would have to carve out, perhaps through the welfare reform Bill, those two parts of the order that we do support, as my noble friend has said: the provisions relating to carers and an additional room being allowed, and the removal of the £15 excess. We sought to do this before the election, and some noble Lords may recall that one party represented here was quite opposed to that. I think it is right now to remove that excess.

Others have explored the thrust of these orders. The most damaging are the setting of the local housing allowance at the 30th percentile of rents in each broad rental market area and the introduction of absolute caps relating to the number of bedrooms in a property. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked whether the Minister could say what proportion of the rental market is in fact available to housing benefit claimants. I understand that the 30th percentile would mean, at least on day one, that 30 per cent of rents would potentially be affordable. It does not mean that 30 per cent would be available, and once we move to uprating by CPI, not even that first proposition would hold true.

Who bears the cost of the benefit savings is at the heart of the debate we are having. Will it fall wholly or mainly on landlords or on tenants who are, by definition, the poor? In considering these matters, we need to be mindful that they are just part of a package of measures aimed at cutting the cost of housing benefit. Still to come are increases in non-dependant deductions, the uprating of LHAs by CPI rather than by actual movements of rents, the docking of 10 per cent for those on JSA for more than 12 months and the extension of the single room rate for individuals up to the age of 35.

The need to tackle the budget deficit is acknowledged, which is why we accept and, indeed, initiated the withdrawal of the £15 excess, but the speed and depth of the cuts proposed is not something we support, as my noble friend has explained. The distribution of the cuts, which the IFS analyses will mean that by 2013-14 there will be an increase in absolute poverty by 300,000 children and 200,000 working-age parents, largely driven by the housing benefit cuts, is simply not acceptable. The DWP issued an impact assessment in November, together with an equality impact assessment. My noble friend Lady Sherlock spoke with some passion about this. The DWP suggests that it cannot assess the behavioural effects of the housing benefit proposals, although it provided an assessment on the assumption that housing choices on rent levels would be unaffected. As we have heard, it estimated that households would lose £12 a week on average, but declared itself unable to estimate the number of households that may move. In contrast, Shelter estimated that 68,000 to 134,000 would move nationally, and the GLA estimated that some 9,000 households may need to move in London.

In the context of our debates, £12 is sometimes not seen as a meaningful figure, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford brought us down to earth on that, as did my noble friend Lady Sherlock who said that it is better to talk in terms of a pair of shoes or enough food on the table. Excluding the removal of the £15 a week excess, the impact assessment still shows that 68 per cent of LHA claimant households will lose on average £10 a week and that losses for those in five-bedroom accommodation will average £74 a week.

Another consequence the impact assessment acknowledges but does not quantify is the prospect of increased homelessness. It also acknowledges that local authorities have a duty to find school places for children moving into their area and that that can lead to increased costs and that children who experience disruption in their schooling may do less well than would otherwise be the case. It recognises that there may be additional burdens on local authorities when families move into an area requiring a care-and-support package, and for disabled people, as we have heard, the DWP states that the LHA proposals could reduce options to help independence and lead to the loss of informal carers and support networks. They are retrograde provisions indeed, as explained by my noble friend Lady Wilkins. For individuals in work, an enforced move could extend their commute to their place of work.

There is a list of probable consequences, but there is no fundamental assessment of or research into the extent to which these circumstances will arise or into how people’s lives will be affected. There is just a cruel acceptance of the traumas that these proposals will visit on poor families and the damage they will inflict on them, their families and their communities. All of this has to be considered in the context of 48 per cent of people on LHA already facing shortfalls between their benefit and their rent. It is inevitable that people having to move, homelessness increasing and debt rising will become a reality. The Government assert that these matters will be mitigated principally by downward pressure on private sector rents, by transitional relief, by households choosing more appropriate accommodation, and by additional funding for discretionary payments.