Covid-19: Work-related Cases

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Trades Union Congress RIDDOR, Covid and underreporting, published on 23 May; and what steps they plan to take in response to the finding that work-related cases of COVID-19 leading to deaths have been underreported.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

RIDDOR requires responsible persons, usually employers in relation to employees, to report certain Covid-19 cases to the relevant enforcing authority. Over 33,000 cases have been reported since 10 April 2020. Not all cases of Covid-19 involving employees are reportable, only those where there is reasonable evidence that an occupational exposure at work led to infection. The Health and Safety Executive has reviewed the TUC report and is considering what, if any, additional action is required.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, RIDDOR should play an important role in collecting data on work-related injury and death as well as dangerous occurrences. It is not an optional arrangement. The mechanism requires a layer of accountability on employers and is a public record of works relating to offices and fatalities. However, matters are not proceeding as they should; it is not working well. There are various accounts of underreporting. I think the Minister has just accepted that this underreporting has been around for some time, and perhaps we can be told why action has not been taken previously. I welcome the news that the HSE is going to get involved and look further at this issue.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

Given the complex system in which transmission of the virus occurs, it is extremely difficult to accurately identify the actual transmission point for any individual, and no one system—for example, RIDDOR—enables this attribution to be made.

Arcadia Pension Fund

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I and the whole House absolutely agree that we need to ensure our legislation can deal with those who would plunder pension schemes. That is why we currently have a Pension Schemes Bill going through Parliament. Let me be clear. Where there is mishandling of a pension scheme, the Bill extends the Pensions Regulator’s sanction regime, introducing the power to issue civil penalties of up to £1 million and three new criminal offences, including a new sentence of up to seven years in prison for bosses who run pension schemes into the ground or plunder them to line their own pockets.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we have just heard about the Pension Schemes Bill and its provisions. When will the new routes to contribution notices, new criminal offences and new information-gathering powers that the Bill makes available to the regulator be available? When the Bill comes into effect, will they be retrospective?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

To give the noble Lord a correct answer, I will need to go back to the department, especially on retrospective issues, and write to him. I will make the answer available to all noble Lords.

Kickstart Scheme

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say—and I reiterate the points I made before—that all through the Kickstart Scheme journey, young people will have the support services of their work coach and the full support of the Jobcentre Plus system, along with their intermediaries and employers. Work coaches will continue to support claimants into work after their placements have been completed. They will not be left to drift. We want as many young people as possible to gain support from this service. On the noble Lord’s point about changing the mechanism of the programme, I am not aware of any plans to do that at present.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, for those employers whose individual job needs do not amount to 30, arrangements can be put in place, as we have heard, by intermediaries. What is the process for this? Is it just a DWP recommendation? Is there a quality assurance process for recognition of intermediaries? Who has responsibility for delivering the various programmes—individual employers or the intermediary entity?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, as the sound was not great, but I think I got the gist of his question. Where employers have robust HR teams and can manage the process, they will obviously be able to bid. Where employers have only one or two opportunities, the role of the intermediary steps in. There will be a quality assurance process for their procurement. I understand that yesterday Movement to Work and the Prince’s Trust were gearing up to fulfil this role. We will make sure that the best possible people are taking part as intermediaries.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The best answer I can give is that I will find out and write to the noble Baroness, because I do not have that information at the tip of my fingers.

The Bill will deliver further improvements, including strengthening consumer protections, improving scheme governance and communications, and facilitating the creation of pension dashboards. We will continue to review these improvements, including a contribution that a pensions commission could make in future. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for her response on this matter and noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this proposition. For those who have felt unable to support it at the moment, I simply make the point that there is no particular timeline: it does not say that it must happen all at one time, or that it must happen tomorrow. There are clearly aspects of the current system which are unsatisfactory.

If I had to encapsulate that in two or three words, I would say that pensioner poverty and under-saving are still with us, big time. Somehow, we need to address that. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am trying to understand whether the compensation recovery mechanism produces more than, less than or the same as the money needed for the 2008 arrangements and whether there is a surplus which might be applied to equalisation. I am not sure that the Minister has dealt with that point; perhaps she will come on to it.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I have had a number of detailed questions about data, which I will come to.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the insurance industry’s funding for mesothelioma research. Again, I will cover that in the letter.

I have had numerous requests for information: industry led, geographically led and fiscally led, whether there are surpluses or anything else, and about the number of claimants in the slate quarry. I hope noble Lords will understand that I am not able to give them that information at the moment, but I will work with officials to get a complete set of data, where it is available, and I will cover the points raised. Information on the slate quarrymen awards is held by the department. It might be difficult to get, but we will have a go.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked what proportion of the amounts paid under the 1979 Act and 2008 Act schemes is recoverable from claims for civil damages. In 2018-19, a total of £24.5 million was recovered. In the current financial year to December 2019, £21.9 million has been recovered. The net cost of the 1979 and 2008 Act schemes to the Government in 2018-19 was £28.2 million.

The noble Lord asked about the number of cases of mesothelioma and requested a breakdown by profession. I will include that in the data that I send out.

Dependants receiving compensation are mostly women. I was asked whether we had considered equality issues. The intention of the scheme was to compensate those who had contracted the disease as a result of their working environment. Historically, those who worked in hazardous environments tended to be men, and this is reflected in the current gender balance of claims.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the levy on the insurance industry and the cap rate of 3% of gross written premium. The levy is reviewed annually using estimates based on management information from the scheme administrator. The levy for 2019-20 is £33.3 million, which is below the cap of 3% of the employer liability gross written premium.

Trade deals were raised and the need to make sure that no opportunity is given for asbestos-related issues to arise. Our standards in the UK are very high and we have no intention of lowering them.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked also about progress on employer liability tracing. I will need to write to him about that once I have found out.

As last year, this has been a wide-ranging debate which has shown this Committee’s interest in and commitment to the people who have suffered this dreadful disease. I thank Members for their many and helpful contributions. I think that I have dealt with a lot of the questions raised, but, as I have promised, I will go through Hansard with my officials and make sure that every noble Lord gets an answer to their questions. The Government recognise the important role played by these schemes in providing financial support to people diagnosed with mesothelioma and the other dust-related diseases covered by them. The regulations will ensure that the value of the schemes is maintained. I commend the uprating of the payment scales and ask for approval to implement it.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

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

[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.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting : House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I will speak also to Amendment 34. The latter seeks to insert into the regulations’ objectives the promotion of DB schemes. Amendment 1 adds as one of the things that TPR may take into account when considering an application for a collective money purchase scheme the potential impact of such a scheme on the DB landscape. Together, the amendments are a peg on which to hang a discussion about the position of DB schemes and their future, especially outside the private sector, and to see what more might be done to sustain them for future accrual.

As the White Paper reminds us, DB schemes currently have 10.5 million members, with £1.5 trillion under management—a not insignificant component of the pensions landscape. Notwithstanding this, DB schemes continue to close to future accrual or membership. Hitherto, the alternative has been some DC scheme, and now there is the prospect of CDC schemes in the future.

In times past, DB schemes were the stalwarts of the occupational pension system. Things looked good, with seeming scope for regular improvements in benefits and with surpluses and contribution holidays available. Indeed, were there not concerns at the Treasury about the system being used for tax shelters? These halcyon days have diminished through a combination of factors: more realistic actuarial assumptions; increasing longevity of members; impacts of inflation; falling asset prices; and, probably, less effective collective bargaining.

Much of the content of the Bill is about maintaining and building confidence in the DB system, but with a stronger regulator, and improving scheme funding rules. We support this approach. It is a pity that the Bill did not include a framework for consolidation but we note that this is to come. Perhaps the Minister will give us a timeline on that.

Although DC schemes remove longevity risks from employers, they are generally characterised as having lower contribution rates, doing nothing for our chronic undersaving. The Minister in the other place has declared that he does not want to see the advent of CDC as being a channel to further closures of DB schemes. In particular, he clarified that the Bill’s proposals do not provide a back door to converting DB rights into CDC rights and are not intended to encourage public service and/or DB schemes to convert their accrued benefits.

Can the Minister say how this intention is manifesting itself in the Bill? The data that have been presented to us show that CDC schemes can generate a pension income significantly above that of a DC arrangement, but of course this is not guaranteed. The question arises as to whether the lure of higher returns could be a catalyst to more DB schemes closing to future accrual. There are restrictions that make this difficult, at least at the moment—single or associated company arrangements being but one. Can the Minister say what mechanisms might be contemplated to deflect such moves, if it is the business of government to do so?

The briefing makes it clear that an employer remains within its rights to close an existing DB scheme to new accruals and to offer pensions on a different basis going forward. We know that it has become common for employers to close DB schemes and to open DC schemes in their place, but the briefing note says that CDC schemes should be seen in this context, as a new option for employers looking to develop their pension offering. Closing DB schemes could indeed be such a channel. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for tabling these amendments. Taken together, they seem to explore the Government’s response to the continuing decline of defined benefit pension provision in the UK. I will address the specifics of these amendments but, first, it may help if I talk about the Government’s approach to workplace pensions in general.

The Government’s priority is to promote pension savings for later life through workplace pensions. However, it is for employers to decide what form of provision to make. This is part of their remuneration strategy to recruit and retain quality employees. The Government’s role is not to tell employers what sort of pension to provide, but to promote workplace pensions and to set some minimum standards. That is why we require employers to automatically enrol all eligible employees into a qualifying workplace pension scheme and to make a minimum contribution to that scheme.

The majority of defined benefit schemes are now closed and, as a result, the defined benefit landscape is changing. Most schemes are maturing with fewer contributing members and more receiving pension benefits. The Government’s 2017 Green Paper and 2018 White Paper did not seek to prevent changes to the pension landscape, but to protect the interests of the large number of members who will still rely on defined benefit schemes for their retirement income. That is what the scheme funding measures in this Bill do.

Before the introduction of automatic enrolment in 2012, the decline in defined benefit pensions was not matched by increases in other types of pension. Overall, therefore, pension participation was in decline. Automatic enrolment has been hugely successful: over 10 million people have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension and the decline in participation has reversed. The number of eligible employees participating in a workplace pension increased from 10.7 million in 2012 to 18.7 million in 2018.

Amendment 1 seeks to put a duty on the Pensions Regulator to take into account the impact on defined benefit schemes when considering an application for authorisation of collective money purchase schemes, also known as collective defined contribution—CDC—schemes. Given the term CDC is widely understood, I shall use it throughout these debates. While the Government do not think they should tell employers what sort of pension they should provide, beyond setting some minimum standards, they want to foster innovation, so that employers have real choices in the type of pension they offer.

I know that concern has been raised that CDC schemes will replace defined benefit schemes. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised this at Second Reading. I want to be clear that the Government do not see CDC schemes as a replacement for defined benefit schemes.

Royal Mail, the employer actively looking to set up a CDC scheme, does not believe that either. Indeed, it has always seen its CDC scheme as an alternative to its individual defined contribution schemes. To manage cost and risk, employers are moving away from defined benefit schemes towards individual defined contribution schemes. CDC schemes should be seen in this context. For example, Royal Mail has been working on a CDC scheme in partnership with the Communication Workers Union because both sides felt that it served Royal Mail employees better than an individual defined contribution scheme. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise what a positive message this sends about CDC schemes.

Royal Mail is not alone. There is growing evidence that many employers with defined contribution schemes want to provide their employees with a pension scheme that provides an income in retirement. CDC schemes are a new opportunity for employers and employees to choose a pension scheme that works for both. I point out that the Bill includes clear safeguards for existing defined benefit pensions: Clause 3 prohibits public service pension schemes being CDC schemes, and Clause 24 prohibits accrued defined benefits being converted into CDC benefits. Therefore, accrued defined benefit pensions cannot be put at risk by the existence of CDC pensions.

I understand the desire to ensure that members in good-quality defined benefit schemes continue to have access to guarantees from their employer, but the amendment could have unintended consequences for members. If the amendment meant that a CDC scheme could not be authorised, it seems likely that the employer would close its defined benefit scheme and offer an individual defined contribution scheme instead. It is important that the decision on whether to authorise a CDC scheme is based on the criteria and information relating to that scheme. It would not be fair on employers or employees to cloud the issue by linking the authorisation to consideration of other types of schemes. Requiring the regulator to make judgments about different types of schemes would also have implications for its role.

Amendment 34 provides for a new objective for the Pensions Regulator: to promote the membership of defined benefit schemes. The regulator exists to protect workplace pensions in the UK. It makes sure that employers put staff into a pension scheme and pay money into that scheme, and that workplace pension schemes are run properly. It does not matter whether members are in a defined benefit scheme, a defined contribution scheme or a CDC scheme—the regulator’s role is to protect their scheme.

As I said in my introduction, the Government’s priority is to promote pension savings for later life and set minimum standards for employer-provided workplace pensions. The Pensions Regulator is required to ensure that those minimum standards are met. The Government do not consider it appropriate to task the regulator with promoting particular types of pension schemes. This could undermine its role as the regulator of workplace pensions in the UK generally. It is for employers to decide what type of pension they provide; employers who provide defined benefit pensions need to be genuinely able to afford the costs and bear the risk. Promoting defined benefit pensions to employers which may be unable to do this would conflict with the regulator’s other objectives, such as protecting members’ accrued benefits and minimising the risk of calls on the Pension Protection Fund.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked why superfunds are not in the Bill. Developing a new regulatory framework for them is a complex task. We are working hard across government and with relevant stakeholders to build consensus on the right approach. We aim to publish our response to the consultation shortly; it will set out in more detail our proposals for a future legislative framework. Once that it is complete, we will look to legislate as soon as we can.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, recognise that the Government’s approach is sensible and proportionate. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for that full reply. We never intended to press the amendments anyway. As I said at the start, it is an opportunity to have a discussion about where the Government are going, particularly on DB schemes.

I am still a little unclear. I quoted one of the briefing papers which the Government provided in preparing for this debate. It referred to a new option for employers looking to develop their pension offering going forward, which seems inconsistent with what we had understood to be the commitment made earlier by the Minister: that the Government do not want CDCs to undermine the existing DB regime. There seems a risk of doing that, and that in many ways was the tenor of the reply she gave: it is not up to the Government, it is up to employers. Of course we accept that there is a role for employers, but is there not an obligation to work with employers to ensure that the best type of arrangement is available? Historically, that has been DB schemes.

Is not a test for this the extent to which we are saving enough as a nation? We do not save only through pensions but saving through pensions is clearly a very important part, particularly as the Minister instanced the auto-enrolment provisions, which we agree have been a huge success. One might just reflect for future policy that they were conceived under a Labour Government, with the legislation prepared under a coalition Government and introduced under a Tory Government. Perhaps there is an example in pensions policy of how we might better work together on other matters.

I will summarise my concerns. It is good that CDC schemes are available to provide, generally, a better return than can come from a straight DC scheme. It is not all upside, as we shall discuss in other amendments, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the benefits available under a DB regime which, apart from other things, had contribution levels way above pretty much anything that arises under a DC scheme. That should concern us all: the level of saving that is taking place.

Having said that, I do not know whether the Minister wants to come back.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank the noble Lord for the observations he has made. I am thrilled that noble Lords agree that auto-enrolment has been a great success and a great way for people to save for their retirement. The role of government in all this is to encourage saving through automatic enrolment, pensions and other savings vehicles. The noble Lord has raised some valid points. I will take them back to officials and, if we need to write to him or meet him to talk about them further, that is what we will do.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for that. I stress, in agreeing about the success of auto-enrolment, that it was started off by a raw junior Minister in the DWP getting that early legislation through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

This has been a good debate. I think we are minded to support this measure. I am not very clear in my mind as to precisely how Royal Mail is tackling this issue at the moment, and if the Minister were able to deal with that in her response that would be a help. One thing that has come through from the Government’s own thinking about this is that wherever we end up on it, there must be specific rules. This should not be just a matter of trustees’ discretion; it should be clearly set out in the rules. I shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments linked to fairness. Concerns about fairness often arise in respect of CDC. I fully understand noble Lords’ interest in this important matter. I share their commitment to ensuring that members of CDC schemes are treated fairly. However, I do not agree that the amendments proposed are necessary to protect members.

Ensuring that members are treated fairly has been a central part of our work on CDC since we began. We have been mindful of the problems that other countries have experienced—for example, in their approach to adjusting benefits—and we have learned from them. Envisaged regulations under Clause 18 will mean that scheme rules will require that there is no difference in treatment between different cohorts or age groups of scheme members when calculating benefits and applying benefit adjustments. If they are not compliant, the scheme will not be authorised.

Noble Lords have previously expressed concern that a significant number of older members might choose to leave a CDC scheme shortly before retirement and that this may pose a risk to younger members. Noble Lords will note that one of the authorisation criteria in Clause 12 relates to the soundness of the scheme design. It is intended to protect members from being enrolled in ill-considered and poorly designed schemes which are unlikely to remain viable over the long term.

It is important that due consideration is given by employers to a scheme’s viability at the design stage, including to how the benefits aspired to will be affected by significant potential events, whether this is a reduction in investment returns or in membership. Envisaged regulations to support the design requirement will aim to ensure that sufficient evidence is provided to satisfy the regulator that appropriate stress testing of the scheme’s design has been undertaken and that a suitable strategy is in place for monitoring and reacting to threats to a scheme’s viability. These are complex matters, so we will consult thoroughly on what the regulations should require in this respect and more widely. We want to ensure that the scheme design is subject to appropriate scrutiny by the regulator at the initial application stage and on an ongoing basis. I am happy to discuss the scheme design requirements in more detail when we reach the relevant clauses.

My noble friend Lady Altmann mentioned cash equivalent transfer values. We propose that a member’s transfer value will be calculated by reference to the present value of the assets currently held that are needed to pay the anticipated pension whenever that is due. That means that, if every member chose to leave at the same time, they would get the present value of their anticipated pension. Nobody would receive anything that was due to anyone else, as the valuation process means that the assets and the cost of all the anticipated pensions should always be in balance. It also means that a member transferring and a member staying always keep the present value of their rights in the scheme and nobody receives anything more than is due to them from the scheme, whether they stay or go.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about the impact of cross-subsidisation on younger members in CDC schemes. Such members may get less value from flat-rate contributions if they decide to transfer out of the scheme before retirement. It is important to remember that pension schemes are long-term saving vehicles, designed to deliver an income in retirement. Our focus is on the long-term benefit of a CDC pension scheme for the scheme members. While CDC benefits are money purchase benefits, a CDC scheme’s purpose is to provide a variable income for life in retirement for its members and not a transferable cash sum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am happy to make sure that that happens.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has made a powerful case on these provisions and we look to support him. There must at least be a strong reason to say why they cannot be pared down and need to be as wide as they are. If there is an argument for them, at least they should be pared down. In so far as whether this is doable—the noble Lord said he is not sure what the answer is—in some of these areas, I am not sure that we know what the question is, which is deeply worrying. These things need to be sorted out because, as they stand, they are going to undermine a scheme that generally has a lot of support, particularly our support, in principle. I would like to get it back on track, so that we can deal with it, deliver it and not be waylaid by these very real concerns over delegated powers.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

My Lords, I recognise the expressed concerns over the regulation-making powers in Part 1 of the Bill and how they might be used. There has also been comment on the principles underlying the choice of negative or affirmative procedure for some of the regulations. This is why we have shared illustrative draft regulations to help noble Lords understand how we intend to use these powers, but the secondary legislation to be made under the proposed delegated powers can be laid before this House in final form only after Royal Assent, in accordance with the procedures set by Parliament. This House will have the opportunity then to scrutinise the secondary legislation.

There are important legal principles at stake before the proposed delegated powers can be exercised properly. In many instances, the Government will wish or have promised to consult further on the technical substance, particularly in Part 1. There are instances where there may be a statutory requirement to consult because of a connection to existing legislation. There are instances where there may be a need to await the outcome of consultation being undertaken by the regulator or where consultation is needed with professional bodies. Finally, there are instances where proposed delegated powers are sought to enable the Government to react to future developments.

Where there is an intention, promise or legal requirement to consult on the substance of secondary legislation, the legal position is clear that the Government cannot prejudge the outcome. Had the Government purported to draft all the secondary legislation at the same time as drafting the Bill, that would have entailed, inevitably, prejudging the substance without the benefit of any necessary consultation or consideration of the eventual wishes of Parliament. Likewise, it is more appropriate to consult once the Bill is passed, so as not to prejudge the intentions of Parliament.

Those are the points of principle. I will now deal with the point that the provisions intended for future secondary legislation could, nevertheless, be written into the Bill, at the inevitable cost of delaying introduction. This approach is consistent with the approach to previous pension schemes Bills, recent examples being the Pension Schemes Act 2017 and the Pension Schemes Act 2015. As with those Acts, the provisions in the Bill embody the fundamental policy.

Provisions of a more technical nature, or which are by their nature liable to change, are delegated to secondary legislation. This staged approach has two benefits. First, it enables flexibility to ensure that the legal framework remains appropriately tailored to developments in the pensions industry. Secondly, it provides legal certainty more quickly and enables those affected to prepare for changes to the law. This is important for the pensions industry.

I note that comment has been made on the propriety of affirmative procedure on first use only. I take this opportunity to make it clear that the Government do not accept that the practice of specifying an affirmative procedure on first use is licence to use those provisions inappropriately at a future stage. The reason for affirmative on first use then negative is that a decision on when the scheme design is sound will be critical to the effective running of the scheme and to safeguarding members. Therefore, it is important that when first determining these matters the regulations are subject to full debate. Further use of the powers is likely to be limited to adapting matters the regulator will be required to take into account in the light of operational experience, so the negative procedure would be appropriate.

With respect, this House is called to scrutinise the scope of the proposed delegated powers and the parliamentary oversight of those powers. The Government can, of course, give this House assurance as to their future intentions in using these delegated powers. To assist the House, the Government have produced illustrative regulations relating to Part 1. I hope this illustrates both the way delegated powers in that part are intended to be used and the limitations in pre-empting their use.

Clause 18 provides for CDC schemes to be required to have rules for how the current value of CDC scheme members’ benefits must be calculated and adjusted each year and for powers for government to make provision about those rules. It is therefore a very important clause for ensuring that all members of CDC schemes are protected from inappropriate calculation methods, with all benefits calculated equitably, with no differentiation on the basis of age, gender and so forth.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would significantly reduce the Government’s ability to ensure that all members of CDC schemes are treated fairly. For example, scheme rules could discriminate against certain members on the basis of age, and the Government would have limited powers to react swiftly to stop this unfairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for bringing this amendment which, as he said, mirrors other aspects of pensions legislation. I was unclear whether this sits alongside the pause and triggering events or would supersede it. I hope the former, as it would be the quickest and easiest way to deal with it. Intrinsic to the wording are challenges that have been met in other pension environments about how to deal with or define “advice”, “adequate” and all that, but it is not beyond the wit of noble Lords to cover that off.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

My Lords, this amendment would mean that a member of a CDC scheme would be unable to transfer their share of the collective assets to another pension scheme, with a view to acquiring flexible benefits or accessing them flexibly under the pension freedoms where this was permitted by scheme rules, unless they had taken regulated advice. I welcome the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and that of my noble friend Lady Altmann, in this area and agree that taking advice can play an important part in helping to ensure pension scheme savers make informed decisions about their pension savings. This includes whether to access them flexibly under pension freedoms or transfer their savings to another pension scheme, with a view to acquiring flexible benefits.

This is why we introduced the advice requirement under the Pension Schemes Act 2015 for members with safeguarded benefits. These are benefits, for example defined benefits, that contain a promise about the rate or amount of pension income that the member will receive in retirement. The advice requirement ensures that members with safeguarded benefits worth more than £30,000 must take regulated advice before they can flexibly access their benefits under the pension freedoms or transfer their pension savings to another pension scheme, with a view to acquiring flexible benefits.

Pensions transfer advice is highly specialised, involving a full assessment of a member’s financial circumstances and a personal recommendation. This helps the member to understand the potential implications of surrendering benefits, where the amount of pension that the person will receive under the scheme is guaranteed by the employer. Pensions transfer advice can be offered only by advisers whose firms have the relevant permissions set out by the Financial Conduct Authority, along with professional indemnity insurance. This comes at a premium, because it is restricted to those prepared to take on the business, and can be expensive. By setting a financial level at which the requirement is triggered in relation to safeguarded benefits, we have sought to ensure that it is applied proportionately. It may not be cost effective for members with smaller amounts of pensions savings to take and pay for such advice.

It is also worth noting that collective money purchase benefits, as a subset of money purchase benefits, are “flexible benefits” for the purposes of the provisions of the Pension Schemes Act 2015. As such, a CDC scheme could decide to allow members to access their share of the collective assets flexibly under the pension freedoms. Before such an option is offered in the scheme’s rules, we intend for trustees to consider fully the potential impact this might have on other scheme members and on the ongoing viability and sustainability of the scheme. For example, if significant numbers of members crystallise all or some of their benefits shortly before retirement, this might impact the scheme’s viability. As part of the authorisation regime, the Pensions Regulator must be satisfied that a scheme’s design is sound, and that such impacts have been considered and appropriately planned for, so that the scheme design meets the authorisation requirements.

We envisage that regulations in support of the scheme design criterion will require evidence that there has been appropriate consideration of risks relating to pension flexibilities, and that action has been taken to mitigate such risks. The ongoing requirement for review of the scheme’s viability report should ensure the scheme monitors any impacts arising from pension flexibilities. These are complex matters; accordingly, we will need to consult thoroughly on what the regulations might require in this respect.

CDC provision is new and the nature of CDC benefits is very different from defined benefits, to which the existing advice requirement relates. As I have explained, pension transfer advice is highly specialised. As CDC schemes are new and only one employer has so far committed to establishing such a scheme, it will likely take time—until more CDC schemes are in place—before advisers consider entering this new market. It will also take time for advisers to develop the necessary expertise to offer appropriate and effective transfer advice to members of CDC schemes. We would need to work closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which will regulate these potential advisers, to determine what effective or quality advice might look like.

As I have said, CDC is a new provision. Even if we were to set a level—for example, £30,000—at which a requirement could apply, it may take time for members’ funds to grow to this level. I can assure the Committee that my officials will monitor this situation as these new CDC schemes bed in. Once it is clearer that an advice requirement for CDC schemes is warranted, for example because members’ funds have grown significantly, we will still need to work out what the appropriate financial level is for triggering the advice requirement in CDC schemes and how that requirement would work best in practice. At that time, we will engage with the industry and stakeholders to work out these details, and we will then consult on the proposal that has been developed. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, we will seek to legislate to implement the requirements.

In the meantime, we will require CDC schemes to provide their members with appropriate information to help them to understand how their scheme works. For example, we would want the communication that the trustees send to a member who has applied for a transfer to contain the estimated value of their share of the collective assets and to outline the potential implications of transferring out of the CDC scheme before normal retirement age. Member communications at joining and near retirement will also signpost CDC scheme members to the guidance that is available from the Money and Pensions Service. The Money and Pensions Service is responsible for providing guidance to people with pensions, and that will include members of CDC schemes.

I hope my explanations have reassured noble Lords that until a CDC advice requirement is needed, members with collective money purchase benefits will still have access to information and guidance to help them to make informed choices. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what has been said about the need to communicate and the basis on which to do so. I simply raise that, in 2018, we had extensive discussions on the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, as it then was. A key point was the lack of full understanding of financial matters of the general public. I have forgotten the statistics, but there was a House of Lords review of financial inclusion, and its conclusions were stark. This is not a reason not to communicate; it is a reason to communicate even more intensively. In how we communicate, we need an understanding of how people might receive these messages and we should not assume they can operate in an environment like this—as many, we know, cannot.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

My Lords, I agree that, for CDC schemes to be a success, a high degree of transparency and effective communications are key. If we want to foster member trust in this new provision in the UK, the full scope of risk and benefits of collective schemes must be clearly communicated to members and others, particularly highlighting the nature of benefits, their potential fluctuations and that they are targeted. I mentioned this at Second Reading.

I have already shared with noble Lords a draft illustrative statutory instrument. Paragraph 32 gives examples of the documents and information we plan to require CDC schemes to publish. This includes documents that relate to target benefits, including the actuarial valuation and a statement informing members and prospective members that benefits may be adjusted based on the actuarial valuation and are not guaranteed. We will also require CDC schemes to publish their scheme rules, which will include details of benefit design.

In addition to those regulations under Clause 46, the existing disclosure requirements under Section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 that currently apply to money purchase occupational pension schemes will apply to CDC schemes, as they are a subset of money purchase benefits. This covers targeted individual member information, and we intend to amend the existing disclosure regulations under Section 113 of that Act to ensure that, for CDC schemes, such information includes key risk messages about benefit fluctuation; for instance, providing full details regarding the possibility of benefit fluctuation at the point of joining in scheme information; emphasising that benefits can change in the member’s annual benefit statement for active and deferred members; being clear that benefits can change during retirement in retirement information packs; and notifying members in advance of any change to their rate of benefit during retirement.

I appreciate the intention behind the noble Lord’s suggestion but, if this amendment stands, all documents and information published would need to include a risk warning message, which would not be relevant in all circumstances; for example, in the scheme’s statement of investment principles. I suspect this would also not meet the noble Lord’s intention that such messages be included in other important communications also made under existing powers. I believe that the best way to approach these concerns is to set out the required information in regulations, as I have indicated, as this would allow the Government to work with the pensions industry to ensure that relevant targeted messages are developed for each relevant document or piece of information.

Widowed Parent’s Allowance

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank my noble friend for her thoughts on this and for trying to come up with solutions, which is always helpful. I will be happy to ensure that her suggestion is shown to Ministers. I cannot promise anything, though I wish I could. I am going to give the homework back to my noble friend and ask her to prepare a paper, to make it easier for me to do that.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we understand that this is not altogether straightforward: there are complexities within it. However, we can be clear on one point, raised by my noble friend Lady Sherlock. Though the implications of the judgment must be carefully considered, do the Government at least accept that the current position is incompatible with human rights legislation? That seems a separate and distinct issue, which the Government should have a view on now.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asks an understandable question. All I can promise him is that that is being considered in the consideration of the ruling. I am sorry that I cannot say more; I have no desire to annoy him or put him off, but that is the accurate position. I am sure he will understand that.

Universal Credit

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am pleased to tell the House that 80% of new claimants are paid on time and in full, and 90% of universal credit payments across the board are paid on time and in full. That is not 100%, and we need to get there. I would like to have a conservation with the noble Lord to understand exactly what he wants, and if it is possible, I will do it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

Where a claimant would be entitled to transitional protection under the migration management arrangements, what would be the effect of the rules that my noble friend outlined if a universal credit payment ceases, even if it is later revived? Would that transitional protection cease or would it continue?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

As I understand the transitional protection, there are ups and downs. I need to double check with officials before giving an answer that is not accurate; I have no desire to do that.

Personal Independence Payment: Assessments

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I completely understand the stress that people have to go through in an appeal. I heard somebody say last week that they were dreading their PIP reassessment. That is clearly unacceptable, but we are working all the time to improve the assessments to ensure that the assessors are up to the job. It is often in collecting the evidence and information at the final-stage appeal that material comes forward that has an impact on the outcome of the appeal. We have to make sure that information is available sooner rather than later.

In preparing for the Question, I also discussed health professionals being written to for clarification on matters during the appeal process. Large numbers of them do not respond, which is most unhelpful. I cannot give you numbers, but it is certainly something that I will take further with officials. The noble Baroness will know that I will meet anybody, but I am afraid that the Minister for Disabled People has got there before us and is committed to hosting a session where she and officials will take the Disability Charities Consortium through how we can improve and increase satisfaction in the process. I suggest that the noble Baroness makes sure that she has a seat at that table.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that the current PIP and ESA contracts are drawing to a close. In both cases, the decision to contract out was driven by a perceived need to introduce efficient, consistent and objective tests for benefit eligibility. Given that none of the providers has ever hit the quality performance targets required and that many claimants experience a great deal of anxiety during the process, is it not time to consider whether the market is capable of delivering assessments at the required level and of rebuilding claimant trust? Does the Minister not think that these assessments are better delivered in-house? For how much longer can we allow the system to fail sick and disabled people?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Lord raises very valid points; he is right to raise them. Extending the contracts does not mean accepting past poor performance—in fact, the DWP Select Committee accepted the extensions as the correct thing to do—but there is a need for stability to support continued improvement. Just to disband those contracts would certainly not give us that stability. We have to work with suppliers to ensure that they build on progress during any extension. We are looking at a two-year extension, which, if I have understood it correctly, will give the department time to look at the possibility of an in-house service.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the first scheduled visit of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, to the Dispatch Box. I think this is the first set of regulations to which she will respond. There is a substantial degree of consensus around the Committee on this very important issue, as we have heard in this brief but inspired debate.

It is always a pleasure to listen to my noble friend Lord Jones speak on these occasions, not only because of the manner of his presentation but because he knows the history of this subject. He gave us a history lesson today, particularly in regard to quarrymen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to the very important issue of asbestos in schools. The HSE may have proposals and procedures for dealing with that but that does not address the circumstances that she identified. It is good to know that we are on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, in supporting these changes. However, I have one or two questions. We know that these are appalling diseases, particularly mesothelioma, with its long latency but, once diagnosed, as we have heard, there is a very short life expectancy. Because of that a good deal of work has been done by some noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wigley, to make sure that medical research is appropriately focused on this. The hope was that that would be paid for in substantial part by the insurers which escaped liability way back when these diseases were being contracted. So my first question for the Minister is: how is that research project proceeding?

As far as pneumoconiosis is concerned, I think we had some aggregate figures on the contributions that were being made but what is the actual level of payments under that scheme, perhaps for the most recent years? Can it be analysed between the various different diseases? How is that programme funded? I will come on to the 2008 Act scheme in a moment. Is it just direct government funding or is there some other cost recovery arrangement under procedures which operate for the 2008 Act?

Perhaps I might ask also about the tracing office. One of the problems with this is the extent to which insurers of the liability insurance can be identified and contacted. A lot of work was done, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, when he was Minister, to try to change the arrangements and accelerate circumstances in which the employers’ liability insurance could be identified. Obviously, that is relevant for where there is an employment nexus. It does not work particularly well for the 2008 Act. I think there were various iterations to try to improve the tracing but it recognises that where there is an employment situation, the obligation on employers, going back to the 1970s, was to have employers’ liability insurance. To the extent that there was, and that can be identified, that should bear the costs of this. Perhaps we could have an update on the tracing office.

Similarly, on the 2008 Act diffuse mesothelioma scheme, could I have an update—the noble Baroness may have given it to us—on how many cases were involved and the most recent cost figures for the year that is just about to end? As I understand it, that was being funded, in part if not wholly, from cost recoveries from pursuing those who should be making payments. I think there are two bits to the issue of equalisation: equalisation between sufferers and dependants. I join those who say that there should be an equalisation. But at the start of the 2008 Act scheme there was a fear that there was not going to be enough money in that to pay compensation levels which equated with the 1979 Act scheme. Ultimately, there was enough money so those two are equalised, at least at the sufferer level, but I am interested in whether the recovery has gone beyond that needed just to make the payment and whether there is a surplus which could be deployed in a different way to increase the payments. That is an issue that we need to try to get to the bottom of.

The orders do not touch upon the 2014 mesothelioma payment scheme—the brainchild of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who did an excellent job in bringing it to fruition. Here we were dealing with circumstances in which there was an employment connection and simply an inability to trace the employer liability policies. The rationale for the scheme was that the insurers should have been bearing the cost of this. They escaped by one means or another. Suggestions that they were then not aware nor back in the 1960s even of the effects of the asbestos are not wholly borne out. The point was to get insurers to cough up and deal with matters for which they were responsible. When that scheme was introduced payment levels were less than 100% of the general tariff of compensation under the 1979 Act scheme. It was subsequently increased and the limit on that was that insurers were not prepared to pay more than 3% of the growth rate in premiums of employer liability insurance. I am interested in an update on that scheme. Are full compensation levels now being met? Are the insurers meeting their full 3% agreement under those arrangements?

I am sorry that those are some detailed points for the Minister, but this is an occasion to focus on this very important matter. I thank the Government for the updating that is before us today, continuing in the spirit of co-operation that there has been on this issue.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for their many helpful contributions—and the generous number of questions. This is designed to keep one on one’s toes. This is my first time doing an SI. I can only plead noble Lords’ indulgence. If I do not answer something properly or I fail to answer it at all, please will noble Lords tell me and I will make sure that they get the answer as quickly possible.

These two schemes play a most important part for these people who have these terrible diseases and it is the very least we can do to get the help that they so rightly deserve. In trying to answer just some of the points—and, again, your Lordships will keep me on my toes to make sure that I do that—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that I acknowledge that the success of the scheme is in the speed that it is dealt with. That is quite right. Is there a follow-up procedure for the payment of the cheque? I am told that there is not. I do not know if that means that I need to talk to the officials to see if there should be or if it is even possible. I am not promising anything but the point has been made.

On the disparity in equalising the payments, we estimate the cost of equalisation to be around £5 million per year. Following on from the previous debate, there is an affordability issue, although when people are suffering like this it is even more acute. At the moment we are trying to get resources to where they are needed most, to people actually living with the disease. We will keep this under review. I can be clear about that. I hope that that answers the question.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

How is the £5 million split between the 1979 and 2008 arrangements, or does it all relate to 1979?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am advised that I should write to the noble Lord on that. I do not have the information, so I will make sure that he gets an answer to that question.

Is anything more being done to prevent the disease? It is. A grant of £5 million from liable funds was awarded to Imperial College in 2016 to establish a national centre for mesothelioma research. The Government have also committed to a number of other measures to stimulate an increase in the level of mesothelioma research activity. The Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research undertook a priority-setting exercise to stimulate an increase in mesothelioma research. As a result, five studies are under way following an NIHR themed call, with total funding in the region of £2.6 million. The first two are due for completion this year, although we would not expect results to be published for some time after the completion date. From the fact that noble Lords are nodding, that seems pretty reasonable, which is good.