Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

I am afraid that the Government have not taken that view in the way they have produced this. They have thought about it and decided that they did not want to go down that route.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about the broader impact of the measure and of APD on the rest of the UK. I agree with him—he will not be surprised to know—in that these things need to be dealt with under a constitutional convention. Nobody could claim that the devolution picture across the UK is anything other than rather piecemeal and the time is long overdue for us to try to bring a bit more coherence to it, not least in terms of the English question.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, talked about the necessity for the parties in Northern Ireland to agree on the budget reduction. Everybody agrees that the budget reductions should have been embarked on earlier, but the process has now started and we are determined to encourage and support the Executive in the future as they grapple with these issues. We are totally clear that the Executive must balance the budget and, to do that, welfare reform must go ahead.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, ranged widely over our constitutional issues and problems. He did not mention that Yorkshire Day is in the middle of the Summer Recess and therefore I will be denied the possibility of getting a big set of powers devolved to Yorkshire, for which I am extremely sorry—but we cannot have everything. I think the noble Lord’s characterisation of the extent to which this would complicate the system and make life difficult for businesses was slightly overdone. The rules we are introducing for larger companies are based on existing OECD principles which companies already operate. As he pointed out, the design seeks to retain coherence within the corporation tax regime as whole. Only one variable is being affected and the whole system is being administered by HMRC, with which all the companies already have relationships.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a number of detailed questions, some of which I hope I can deal with. He asked whether the notional profit attributable to back office was creditable in the rest of the UK tax computation. This notional profit forms part of the attribution of trading profits to the Northern Ireland regime, so will not feature as mainstream—to use the language of the Bill—profit; that is, non-chargeable at the UK rate.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry, but my question was about not whether they are creditable within the UK system but whether they would be creditable to a foreign investor.

[Lord Newby]

I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point, but I suspect that the answer is yes. However, I am not confident, so I shall write to him.

The noble Lord asked about whether an SME that is determined to be within the Northern Ireland regime but has 25% of its activity within the UK has all its corporation tax charged at the Northern Ireland rate. The answer is yes—all its qualifying profits will be taxed at the Northern Ireland rate. It is estimated that more than 99% of the small and medium-sized businesses affected have 100% of their trading activity in Northern Ireland. That seems rather a large figure but, even if it was slightly less than that, the amount of potential tax forgone for the UK in one guise or another is very small.

The noble Lord asked how it would work in calculating the block grant. If and when this power is in place, the Executive’s funding will consist of three elements. The Barnett formula continues to operate, so there is the Barnett-based block grant. There is then a block grant adjustment, so there is a deduction from what they would otherwise have got, to reflect the CT revenues forgone. Then you put back in the CT revenues that you are collecting. That is the principle of it. I accept that actually doing it is quite complicated, but the principles are quite clear.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I shall not make this a dialogue, but is the consequence that on day one the deduction from the block grant would effectively be at the current mainstream corporation tax rate and the benefit at the Northern Ireland corporation tax rate? Clearly there is a differential between the two, which is why you get a substantial negative in the block grant, at least on day one.

[Lord Newby]

Yes, it is the difference between the 20% and the 12.5%.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Monday 12th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and have added my name to it. As we have heard, it is about placing a duty on the FCA to set regulations for pension providers to deliver adequate protection for consumers—the second line of defence. However, having heard the contributions of my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lady Drake, I find myself with nothing further to say. I could go through some partial repetition but I think that, in the circumstances, I will desist.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, and perhaps particularly the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.

The amendment relates to the FCA’s duty to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers making a decision about their retirement income, with or without guidance. It is important to recognise that, as noble Lords have said and as was mentioned in a previous debate today, not all individuals will seek to take up the guidance offer, and that is their choice. I agree with noble Lords that, whether a consumer has taken guidance or not, they should be assured of their protection in the financial services market and be furnished with the right information to make an informed choice. I completely accept the point made by noble Lords —and as demonstrated in the FCA’s market studies—that in the past this has often not been the case.

First, the FCA is a relatively new body with new powers. I assure noble Lords that it has a duty to ensure that the retirement income market is working for consumers. That is captured under its statutory objectives, including its objective to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers in this market, which already extends across retail financial services markets. The FCA has specifically committed to closely monitor how the retirement income market develops and to take action where appropriate. It has broad powers to take action if there is evidence of mis-selling of products that are clearly inappropriate for consumers. It also has product intervention powers, which allow it to ban features of products or require products to be sold with certain protections or restrictions in place.

It is also important that consumers have the right fundamental information that they need to inform their choices, whether they take guidance or not. For those who choose not to take up the offer of guidance—the amendment is about people who choose not to take up the guidance; the issues raised here will be covered in the guidance sessions—the FCA’s rules, which it recently consulted on, in respect of these pension changes will require firms to provide a description of the possible tax implications when people apply to access their pension fund. The FCA has also made it clear that firms can question a customer’s decision where they feel it is inconsistent with their circumstances without fear of overstepping the boundary into regulated advice.

As noble Lords have pointed out, the FCA has committed to reviewing all its rules in the first half of this year. I assure noble Lords that it is considering what additional consumer protections should be put in place to support people making choices about their pension savings and the implications of those different choices. This is not simply a reactive approach; the FCA is doing this in the light of the work that it has already done and in the light of its extensive understanding of the market.

This debate highlighted an important issue of FCA protection. I hope that I have been able to assure noble Lords that not only does the FCA already have a duty to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, regardless of whether they have used the Pension Wise service, but it has the appropriate powers to fulfil this duty without this amendment. Its attention is suitably focused on the development and treatment of consumers in the retirement income market. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Monday 12th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister help me on two points which arise from the Pension Wise document we got just this morning? Page 7, which recites progress to date, says that,

“until the service reaches maturity, overall responsibility for service design and implementation will remain within the Treasury”.

Will the Minister expand on that and say at what stage he believes the service will reach maturity?

Page 17 says:

“Telephone and face to face guidance sessions will initially be designed as a single session per consumer, though this will be kept under review”.

Will the Minister say something more about the components of that review? What will be taken into account in determining whether that single session for consumers is adequate?

[Lord Newby]

It is difficult to give a precise answer to the noble Lord’s first question, about maturity. The Treasury is, for good or ill, going to keep its mitts on this process until we are very satisfied that it is working well and is seen to be in a stable and successful state.

As for the single session, noble Lords will be aware that people will be able to access the service either online, on the phone or in person. The hope is that by giving people all the financial information that they require, by encouraging them, in the case of pension providers, and by explaining to people, before they turn up to their session, the kind of information that we are looking for, it will be possible to give adequate guidance in one session. We accept that that will not be enough for some people; they will have forgotten something or a thought will occur to them once they have left. We hope that of those cases, which we hope will be a small minority, a majority will be able to get an adequate response to a specific query by going to the website.

We accept, however, that for some people that will not be the case, and that in a minority of cases some people will need to go back, either to make a subsequent phone call or to have a subsequent meeting. However, we are working very hard to minimise that necessity—because, obviously, getting things right first time will be in everyone’s interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I will speak in favour of my noble friend’s amendment and address two points. The first is the point my noble friend raised about tax leakage and the risks of salary sacrifice arrangements. I draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 54, which looks at the issue of independent advice and provides, not unreasonably, that that will not be a taxable benefit. However, it precludes it from that exemption if it is the subject of a relevant salary sacrifice arrangement, which is defined in the Bill. Rather than rely on a reduction in the annual allowance as, seemingly, the protection against salary sacrifice arrangements and tax leakage, why not simply adopt the same formulation that is adopted in Clause 54 by precluding salary sacrifice arrangements being available on appropriate definitions?

My second point is to try to get a better handle on the Government’s assessment of behavioural change in the early years as a result of these flexibilities. We can do no better than to focus on the tax projections in the Red Book for March 2014 and the Green Book for the Autumn Statement because those must have been underpinned by some detailed calculations. I am not sure that we have seen that detail to date. I hope that the Minister will follow up in writing if he is not able to deal with all the detail today. How many cases of individuals taking lump sums or other drawdown arrangements rather than annuities are included in those estimates? That must have been the basis on which they were adduced. What is the additional aggregate taxable income expected each year until 2020? How many individuals are estimated to pay tax at higher rates as a result than they would under normal annuitisation? We probed this matter on Report in the Commons but did not get a reply. It would be helpful to have that detail as it would give us an understanding of the Government’s assessment of behavioural change and the number of people who will take more of their pension pots under these flexibilities than would if the annuity arrangements only had been available.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group would require the Government to publish two reviews of the impact of pensions flexibility. I start by completely agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, that these changes are welcome freedoms and flexibilities but, like all freedoms, they bring some risks that I hope, in a variety of ways, we shall be effective at mitigating.

Noble Lords will not be desperately surprised to hear that I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. First, when considering new Clause 1 and the parts of new Clause 2 which relate to Exchequer revenues, it is important to note that in the Autumn Statement the Government published estimates of the Exchequer impact of the policy as a whole. These costings, which were certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, cover all the changes made to the policy since the Budget as a result of consultation. The total impact of these decisions was set out in table 2.1 of the Autumn Statement document.

To ensure that the Government were being sufficiently transparent, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote to members of the former Taxation of Pensions Bill Committee setting out these costings. I will now outline them for the benefit of the Committee. Further detail on how these costs were calculated is set out in the policy costings document published alongside the Autumn Statement. However, in the letter sent by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the members of the former Taxation of Pensions Bill Committee, it was also explained that the costings published as part of the Autumn Statement were based on the same central assumptions that underpinned the costings published at the Budget. Since the Budget, the Government have explored in more detail two aspects of the policy that affect this costing, which takes us to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, about the increased cost of salary sacrifice and the increased cost of welfare as a result of the reforms. The Government have produced costings for these, which have been scrutinised by the OBR. In line with standard practice, these are accounted for as changes to the forecast and are not therefore outlined in table 2.1 of the Autumn Statement document.

Given the concern that noble Lords have expressed, it may be helpful if I detail what those figures are. The revisions to the forecast to account for salary sacrifice, which take account of further discussions and considerations since the Budget, are £35 million in 2015-16, £30 million in 2016-17, and £25 million in each of the following three years. When the forecast was revised to account for the increased cost of welfare, the figures rose from £15 million in 2016-17 to £25 million in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Government have therefore already published the information that these two new clauses are seeking on the Exchequer impacts of various aspects of flexibility, all of which have been certified by the independent OBR. The Government are committed to keeping the policy under review through the monitoring of information collected on tax returns and tax records. Additionally, HMRC regularly publishes data on tax receipts, which will reflect any impacts on the Exchequer. Any such impacts will be reflected in forecasts at future fiscal events and the Government of course keep tax policy under continuous review. Therefore, there is no need, in the Government’s view, for further reviews of the Exchequer impacts of the policy as the Government have already committed to keep these under review through the usual processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

I am saying that in a whole raft of areas, no doubt under successive Governments, the Treasury has made behavioural assumptions. When I used to work in Customs and Excise, that was certainly the case when asking what would happen if the duty on whisky was put up. A whole raft of behavioural assumptions is made in policy-making and I do not think that it has been the policy to make those behavioural assumptions public. What obviously has been, and will remain, policy is to set out the impact of those behavioural changes. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Perhaps when she was a Minister behavioural assumptions were made available. My understanding is that that has not been the policy but I will go back to the Treasury and check.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I wonder whether the Minister can help me. It seems to me that there is potentially a difference with behavioural change which is incidental to the fundamental policy issue. However, here we are talking about a system where the change and the data underlying the tax issues are absolutely fundamental—it is what the whole policy change is about. Just to be clear on that, the Budget Red Book for 2014 refers to extra tax in 2015-16 of £320 million, £600 million the year after, £910 million the year after that and £1.2 billion the year after that. I think we understand that work has been done on those figures and that the Office for Budget Responsibility has accepted them as realistic. However, as I understand it, the Government are not going to tell us the basis on which those figures have been derived. They are not going to give us the opportunity to make any judgment as to whether, ultimately, we support the policy.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I was simply saying that my understanding is that it is a long-standing convention regarding the behavioural assumptions that go into producing those figures. The only other thing I would say is that today we have seen another, very different, estimate of the costs. There is a very considerable degree of uncertainty about the figures at the moment but the Government made their best estimate at the time of the Budget and they amended it in the light of further consideration at the time of the Autumn Statement. They will obviously keep the situation under review as we see what people do rather than speculate about how the policy will work.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked about the effects of the new policy and flexible access on eligibility for means-tested benefits—in particular, social care. The policy aim is to ensure that the decisions people make in choosing between taking their pension as income and keeping more of their pension as capital and drawing it out periodically do not significantly impact on how they are assessed for social care support and how their means are assessed for social security purposes. New statutory guidance and regulations under the Care Act were published on 23 October. They include details on the changing rules for care and support.

In respect of social security, we announced a change in the rule for people above pension credit qualifying age who claim means-tested benefits. The notional income amount applied to pension pots which have not been used to purchase an annuity will be reduced from 150% to 100% of the income from an equivalent annuity, or to the actual income taken if that is higher, in line with the rules for care and support.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked about unwinding annuities already bought. This is not government policy. It was a suggestion of my colleague Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister, in the context of future Liberal Democrat party policy. It was not a statement of government policy.

I am sure that there are other specific issues raised by noble Lords in this debate to which I have not given a full answer. I will read it again.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I promise not to delay the Committee any longer. However, I would just refer to the point about why the Government have not taken the opportunity to specifically deny the benefit of the flexibilities when there are salary sacrifice arrangements. They have done it in another small part of the Bill, so it is technically achievable. Why have they eschewed that—to allow at least some element of salary sacrifice arrangements to have the tax benefits that they are designed to?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, one thing I have not responded adequately to—and I am not sure whether what I am going to say will adequately answer the noble Lord’s point, but I will write to him if I do not—is about salary sacrifice and the question about the £10,000 allowance, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others, referred to.

The £10,000 allowance is, we think, a sensible middle way to allow the majority of people the flexibility to withdraw or contribute to their pension as they choose from age 55, while also ensuring that individuals do not use the new flexibility to avoid paying tax on their current earnings. However, there are clearly circumstances in which it will be in an individual’s best interests to gain access to part of the pension pot early—at 55 or 56—while by the time they are 60 their circumstances have changed and they can then start contributing again to a pension. We did not want to deny that entirely. Equally, as noble Lords have said, we did not want individuals recycling money out of pension pots just in order to avoid tax. It is therefore a pragmatic compromise figure which we think strikes the right balance.

Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as both sets of regulations deal with national insurance contributions and arise from the changes made to the taxation and charging of national insurance consequent to changes made to the treatment of partnerships in the Finance Act 2014 and the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014, it seems sensible to debate them together. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered these regulations and has not raised any issues relating to them, and I can confirm that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

I turn first to the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations. Section 13 of the National Insurance Act 2014 provides a power to make regulations to modify the way in which the liabilities of members of certain partnerships to class 4 national insurance contributions are determined. That section addressed an issue arising under existing partnership rules whereby the immediate entitlement to partnership profit is restricted by the alternative investment fund managers directive. Under existing partnership rules, tax and national insurance contributions are charged on profits as they are earned rather than when they are received. An unfunded NICs charge can therefore arise on profits that are allocated to an individual partner of an alternative investment fund management partnership and which are then deferred in line with the regulatory requirements of the AIFMD. This is because the partner cannot access the profits in the year they arise. Following discussions with fund sector representatives and the Financial Conduct Authority, the Government have put in place a statutory mechanism to address this issue. These regulations remove the charge to class 4 NICs when the profits are allocated to an individual but access is restricted under AIFMD, and reinstate the charge when those profits are eventually vested in the individual. As a result, the individual will be liable to pay class 4 NICs only when they have unfettered access to the profit. To ensure consistent treatment between NICs and tax, these regulations mirror income tax legislation.

Turning now to the Social Security Contributions (Limited Liability Partnership) Regulations, Section 14 of the National Insurance Act 2014 provides an express power to regulate to treat some members of a limited liability partnership who meet certain conditions as employed earners for NICs. Similar provisions treating these members as employees for income tax purposes can be found in the Finance Act 2014. Previously, all members of an LLP were treated for tax and national insurance contributions as self-employed. They benefited from the tax and NICs rules for the self-employed and the LLP did not have to pay employer’s NICs.

The treatment of members of LLPs as being self-employed for tax and NICs was designed to replicate the position of traditional partnerships. However, LLPs have increasingly been used to disguise employment relationships and to avoid accounting for employment taxes and NICs. The new measures in these regulations and the Finance Act ensure that the original intent—that of treating members of a LLP the same as traditional partnerships—is not used to create a tax and NICs advantage. They create a level playing field for those who have not sought to misuse the rules for a tax and NICs advantage and those who have.

When certain conditions are met, a member of an LLP will be treated instead as an employee for the purposes of NICs. Broadly, that means that they will have employee NICs deducted from payments to them and the LLP will have to account for employer NICs and assume the other responsibilities arising from being the secondary contributor. The conditions were introduced by the Finance Act 2014, and are that the individual member of the LLP has little or no real economic interest or risk in the LLP, no significant influence over its affairs, and is largely rewarded by a fixed salary. During the course of the consultation in 2013 and 2014, HMRC became aware of proposals to create structures with corporate members to avoid the impact of the proposed changes. The proposals involved the individual establishing a personal service company or other intermediary and that intermediary becoming a member of the LLP in place of the individual. These regulations contain measures to counteract the artificial interposition of a company or other intermediary to avoid the impact of the legislation.

The regulations apply where the new tax provisions apply and an individual salaried member of an LLP is treated for income tax purposes as an employee of the LLP under a contract of service. For the purposes of NICs, the salaried member is treated as an employee and their income is treated as earnings, and the benefits in kind regime applies to them. As the salaried members are treated as employees for the purposes of employee NICs, the LLP is treated as an employer for NICs purposes and must account for employer NICs. The employer as secondary contributor is also responsible for statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay. These regulations provide that the LLP will be responsible for these statutory payments in respect of salaried members.

As I have mentioned, HMRC became aware of schemes to avoid the impact of the Government’s partnership proposals. The tax legislation to prevent such avoidance provides that where an individual provides services to the LLP through an arrangement involving a member of the LLP who is not an individual—generally a personal service company—the individual providing the services is then treated as a salaried member. So an individual cannot sidestep the impact of these measures by interposing a company or other intermediary between themselves and the LLP. These regulations ensure that where the tax anti-avoidance measure is in play, the like NICs consequences will follow.

To avoid a double charge arising where the anti-avoidance measure applies and the intermediaries legislation, commonly known as IR35, also applies, the regulations in respect of IR35 are modified so that only one charge under these regulations can occur. To ensure consistent treatment for NICs and income tax, these regulations mirror the tax legislation, relying on mirroring definitions. These provisions are part of a package of tax and NICs measures that will yield £3.2 billion over the period to April 2019. The regulations contain mirror provisions applying to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland.

I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am reverting to dealing with Treasury matters today because my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe is in the Chamber.

As the Minister explained, these regulations spring from a review of the taxation liabilities of partnerships, and elements of avoidance related to the conversion of employment income into self-employment income, particularly regarding mixed partnerships, with individuals and corporates, and the allocation of profits and gains on a favourable basis. I should make it clear that we support the tackling of such avoidance; it is absolutely right that we do so.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the second set of regulations made reference to estimated,

“tax and NICs revenue of £3.27 billion over the forecast period to 2018-19”.

In the light of tax receipts to date, will the Minister comment on how robust that figure is and whether there is a revision on the cards? Unless he can respond, we may have to wait for the OBR report in a few weeks’ time.

As I said, we support the principle of those with disguised self-employment income being treated as employees for both income tax and national insurance purposes. Can the Minister say a little more to clarify the precise circumstances under which these provisions will apply? I looked at the summary of responses in HMRC’s document, Partnerships: A Review of Two Aspects of the Tax Rules. Pages 11 and 12 set out the Government’s proposals for when the rules would apply, and state:

“Where all of new conditions A to C (as set out below) are met, then with effect from 6 April 2014”—

I note that these measures are retrospective, and we support that—

“an individual member of an LLP will be treated as an employee of the LLP for tax and NICs purposes”.

Condition A then states that,

“the member is to perform the services for the LLP in his or her capacity as a member, and is expected to be wholly or substantially wholly rewarded through a ‘disguised salary’ that is fixed or, if varied, varied without reference to the profits or losses of the LLP”.

That is one of the three tests, and I understand that all three must be satisfied. If that is one of the planks that the Government are moving forward on, it would not be too difficult to circumvent and seems somewhat flimsy.

Condition B in the Government’s response is that,

“the member does not have significant influence over the affairs of the partnership”.

I wonder about the extent to which that condition reflects what happens in lots of partnerships at the moment. I remember being, in a former life, a partner in Price Waterhouse, but as a new equity partner, with another 120 partners at the same time, frankly one’s influence over the business was quite small. A lot of these partnerships have grown much broader in the intervening years. I would have thought it quite likely that someone who is a genuine equity partner does not have significant influence over the affairs of the partnership. Collectively, equity partners do, but individually they do not. Perhaps the Minister will help us with that.

Will he also say something about the territorial aspects? The regulations refer to partnerships that are constituted under UK law and, clearly, that are operational in the UK. What happens to partnerships that are constituted under the rules of a territory outside the UK?

Do any other consequences flow from treating income as employment income? The Minister referred to statutory payments, but there are issues around employment rights and health and safety. For example, there are some changes in legislation that are looking to exempt a huge swathe of the self-employed from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Would that continue to apply to people who purport to be self-employed, notwithstanding that they are being treated as employed for the purposes of tax and national insurance contributions?

I move briefly to the regulations that relate to the AIFM arrangements. As the Minister explained, these apply to class 4 self-employed contributions. What is the situation of somebody who is treated as an employed person under the other regulations? How does this work for such people? That is very unclear. The regulations seem to focus just on class 4, which presumably applies only to those who have deferred income arising and are accepted as being genuinely self-employed, and not to this other category, which we are seeking to address in the other regulations. I must say, I am a little confused about how that works.

Paragraph 4.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to class 4 contributions applying when profits,

“vest in the individual partner, if that partner is carrying on the AIFM trade at the time of the vesting”.

What if the individual is not carrying on the trade at the point of vesting? I am not sure technically how that would work, but clearly the Explanatory Memorandum recognises that it is a possibility. When does class 4 bite in those circumstances?

I should be grateful for the Minister’s help on those points, in follow-up if not here today. Clearly, we have no problem with these regulations and we support the thrust of the anti-avoidance provisions that they seek to address.

[Lord Newby]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support for these SIs and for his questions. On his first question about the revenue of £3.2 billion, the formal answer is, of course, that as this has just started and is looking at the period to 2018-19, it is far too early to tell. To the extent that there has been any weakness in income tax receipts, it is due to shortfalls in income from people at the lower end of the income spectrum. These people are definitely not there. Given that the sector we are talking about is doing pretty well at the minute, there is certainly no reason to think that that figure is unlikely to be met.

The noble Lord asked about the territoriality of the measure. My understanding is that it applies to UK-constituted partnerships only. He asked about the conditions, of which there are three. Condition A is that reward is largely fixed. The use of “largely” simply allows for small variations to take place but for an individual still to fall within that condition. As regards exactly what is meant by the second condition, HMRC has issued detailed guidance, which was written following extensive consultation and discussion with the sector.

I am sure that I have not responded to one or two points and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for being willing to accept a letter dealing with those remaining points. With those responses to the noble Lord’s comments, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Pensions

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Thursday 26th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they propose to announce details of plans to guarantee all retirees face-to-face pensions guidance from April 2015.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Government recently consulted on how best to deliver the guidance guarantee through their post-Budget consultation, Freedom and Choice in Pensions. They are now processing the responses and aim to respond before the Summer Recess of Parliament.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am not reassured. We have a clear case here of a policy being announced and the Government now trying to work out when, how and whether it can be implemented. The Budget Statement was very clear: the guarantee was for “free, impartial, face-to-face” guidance, not the opportunity to attend a mass meeting or have some group therapy. I took the guarantee of face-to-face provision to be an opportunity for those who want or need it to interact individually and directly with another human being. Is that still the policy?

Taxation: Personal Thresholds

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Government have adopted the policy of raising the qualifying earnings threshold for auto-enrolment in line with the personal income tax threshold rather than changes in the value of earnings. This denies lower-paid workers, mainly women, the benefit of an employer pensions contribution and of course saves the Treasury the cost of tax relief. How many low-paid workers is it estimated will have lost out because of this approach during this Parliament?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord with the answer to that question. However, I am sure he will agree that the raft of measures that the Government are taking on pension reform will have as one of their signal benefits that many women who have lost out on pensions in the past will gain from adequate pensions in the future.

Age-Related Payments Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the draft regulations before the Committee today confirm the rules surrounding the proposed payments to holders of Equitable Life with-profits annuities which began before 1 September 1992.

This version of the regulations supersedes a previous draft which was debated in this House in July. As a result of that debate, a drafting error was identified in the regulations. The policy as announced by the Chancellor specified that a single payment would be made to each eligible policyholder regardless of the number of relevant policies they held. However, the previous draft allowed for multiple payments to be made to policyholders if they held multiple policies. The previous draft has now been withdrawn. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for identifying the error, and I apologise for our having made it in the first place. However, all policy decisions surrounding the regulations remain the same, and only technical changes have been made to the regulations.

I briefly remind the Committee of the background to the decision to make these payments. As noble Lords will be aware, this Government established the Equitable Life payment scheme in 2010 to make payments totalling up to £1.5 billion to about 1 million former Equitable Life policyholders who suffered financial losses as a result of government maladministration which occurred in the regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society.

Since the establishment of the scheme, the Government have received representations suggesting that a specific group of elderly policyholders who bought their with-profits annuity from Equitable Life before 1 September 1992 should be included within the scheme. The Government remain of the view that there is no basis for their inclusion. In short, this is because the scheme is based on the understanding that those investing with Equitable Life relied on regulatory returns that were subject to government maladministration. As such, they had lost the opportunity to make a fully informed decision. If they had had this opportunity, they might have invested elsewhere. The first returns that would have been different if maladministration had not occurred were those of 1991, which would not have influenced policyholders’ decisions until September 1992. Therefore, investment decisions made before this time are not included in the scheme.

It is clear, however, that this group of policyholders is under significant financial pressure in their later years, as they have not received the income that they planned for from their Equitable Life annuity that they bought more than 20 years ago. In this year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government would make an ex gratia payment of £5,000 to those individuals who bought an Equitable Life with-profits annuity before 1 September 1992 and were aged over 60 on 20 March 2013, the date of the Budget. An additional £5,000 is available to those policyholders who are also in receipt of pension credit.

I can reassure noble Lords that the revision of the regulations has not caused any delay to the planned timing of these payments. We appreciate that many of the pre-1992 with-profit annuity policyholders are very elderly and in financial hardship, so the Treasury intends these payments to be made soon after the parliamentary process has been completed. We are very grateful to the Prudential, which makes ongoing annuity payments to this group of policyholders, for its support in making these one-off payments.

In September, the Treasury wrote to all those who are expected to be eligible under these regulations to give more detail on the payments and to encourage people to check their pension credit status by 1 November with the Department for Work and Pensions. As a result, the Department for Work and Pensions has recently begun work to identify which pre-September 1992 annuitants are in receipt of pension credit. This will allow the payments due to them to be increased from £5,000 to £10,000 without the need for them to make any application. Under the regulations, we also have a provision that should an annuitant be eligible for pension credit on 1 November but is not on the DWP’s records for some reason on that date, they can apply directly to the Treasury for the additional £5,000 due to them.

As I explained on a previous occasion, should an eligible annuitant have passed away after the Budget announcement on 20 March 2013 before receiving their payment, this payment will be made to their estate. As these payments have a more complex administrative process, the Treasury has already begun the process of writing to the personal representatives of those deceased policyholders with details of how to apply for this payment. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, which engender a sense of déjà-vu. We note that the error in the original regulations has been corrected to ensure that only one payment of £5,000 is due regardless of the number of relevant with-profits annuity policies held by a qualifying annuitant.

Other than the possible delay in payment—I think that the Minister said that this re-run of the regulations would not mean a delay—it would seem that no individual has been disadvantaged by the re-run of the regulations. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that because I think that the same parameters operate for pre-1 September 1992 with-profits annuity policies; that is, that the individual should have been aged over 60 on 20 March 2013 and should have checked their pension credit status by 1 November 2013. If the re-run meant that payments were later than they otherwise would be, there could be a very narrow category of individuals who might have survived to receive pension credit but did not survive to receive the additional payment, but I do not think that that arises if there is no delay in the payments.

We went over some of the convoluted background to the Equitable Life saga. I do not propose to revisit it today as the Minister gave us a summary. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the status of our earlier debate. I cannot remember whether it was reported to the House or whether it just withered on the vine. I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to add to our exchanges on the tax profile of recipients. If he does, perhaps he can do that this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive comments on the scheme. I shall do my best to answer them, but there may be one or two things that I need to follow up on in writing.

I understand that no individual will be disadvantaged as a result of this slight delay because we have moved to write to people and to get the process in motion. On timing, the noble Lord raised the fascinating question of how many payments might be made before the current financial year. That is an extremely interesting question to which there is probably an obvious answer.

There are two things on which I may need to write. On applications, 5 July and whether that is a deadline, I think that it is but, if I am wrong, I shall write to him. By 5 July, given that people will have been contacted already, we would have expected them to have responded. The noble Lord asked a number of questions about the Equitable Life scheme, particularly on publicity around the closure of that scheme. I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to those questions now, but I will write to the noble Lord, and I hope I will set his mind at rest.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

On the July 2014 date, if I understood what the Minister said, we could have a situation where the Treasury, based on the engagement of Prudential, has made an error in not making a payment to somebody yet the potential recipient has not applied within the deadline—between April and July is a fairly narrow period—and would cease to have any entitlement. Where the origin of the problem is an error by Prudential or the Treasury, that seems a little harsh.

[Lord Newby]

Can I write to the noble Lord on that point and set his mind at rest?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I would be grateful for that.

Age-Related Payments Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Monday 22nd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the speed with which he joined this debate from the Chamber and for his typically forensic questions. He asked me whether the reality validates the view we originally took on under and overpayments on Equitable Life. I believe that it does. If I am wrong, I will write to him, but I think that it does. He asked when the payments would score. I believe that they will score when they were made, so earlier.

The noble Lord asked one or two detailed numerical questions. How many would be precluded by being under-60 at the relevant point? I understand that there are 19, so it is literally a handful. He asked about how many are resident overseas. There are 223 overseas policyholders, 125 of whom are within the EU. He asked about the incomes of the people involved—how many would be paying tax at the various rates. We simply do not have information about the incomes of those pre-1992 with-profits annuitants.

The noble Lord asked whether there would be multiple payments. No, there will not be multiple payments. There will be one payment per policyholder even if they have more than one policy. He then asked the wider question of why £5,000 and why this group. These are simply matters of judgment. Should it be five rather than four rather than six? The view taken by my colleagues in the Treasury was that £5,000 had a sense of justice about it, and that it was felt broadly right and was affordable.

Why this potential group? As the noble Lord knows, this group has been part of the debate about Equitable Life all the way through—about where do you draw the line between payment and non-payment. After a very long period of discussion it was simply thought that these groups were Equitable Life policyholders who had not got the sort of benefit that many other Equitable Life policyholders had got, notwithstanding the fact that they were not subject to maladministration in the same way, and that it was a question of fairness to them. That was the telling argument which decided us on this course.

I hope that I have answered all the noble Lord’s questions. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for the very full answers that the noble Lord has given, but perhaps I may come back on this issue of only one payment. I hear very clearly what the Minister says. Either I am misreading the Explanatory Note, or it is something that we will have to settle outside our discussions today, but it would be good to be clear on that.

On the issue of who we are supporting here, it is quite possible that the people who are getting these ex-gratia payments are higher-rate taxpayers as well as people who do not pay tax at all. Obviously, having a tax-free ex-gratia payment is of particular value to such people. The overall cost, which is, I think, £45 million, is not in these days a small sum. This is why my last question is about all the demands and all the challenges that we have, particularly some of the benefit changes. Why spend £45 million on this group, including some who are higher-rate taxpayers who are going to do very well out of a tax-free ex-gratia amount? I think that I have made the point, and I am grateful for the noble Lord’s explanations.

[Lord Newby]

I do not think that there is any doubt that one individual will get a maximum of one payment. I am sorry if the note is not very clear but I think that that is correct. Should these payments be tax free? One of the considerations—bearing in mind that these are not insubstantial payments, but they are not vast payments—was that, given that we do not know the current incomes of the people, having a common payment to this group of elderly policyholders seemed to us to be the easiest, simplest, and fairest outcome.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his support for the amendments in this group. He made the very important point that we are potentially moving into a period of greater inflation. This point was made last week by the FT, which talked about the risks of stagflation in this country. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for his support. He posed the key question: how will making these people poorer help the national interest? What we heard from noble Lords who oppose the amendment did not help us on that point.

I say to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who prayed in aid universal credit, that it would be good to know that universal credit is on track because from everything we hear it is not. Even with universal credit as proposed, we know that something like 1.8 million people will have their benefits from work reduced in comparison to their current position.

I stress that the amendment challenges the locking-in over a three-year period of the restrictions on uprating. Uprating by less than the rate of inflation is a real-terms cut. We should recognise that it is a cut in people’s benefits. The fundamental proposition in the amendment is that these things should be looked at in the normal way on an annual basis by reference to what is happening to prices.

The noble Lord, Lord King, and the Minister said that other countries are cutting benefits. Benefits have been cut in this country, too. Council tax benefit, housing benefit, DLA, ESA and tax credits have been cut by something like £18 billion to date.

[Lord Newby]

Will the noble Lord confirm that no benefits in this country have been cut in cash terms, as they have widely been in the rest of Europe?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Housing benefit is one such benefit. Council tax benefit has been dumped on local authorities with a 10% restriction on funding, which means that people’s support will be cut in cash terms. That is absolutely happening.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Forsyth, that it seemed that the mention of Cyprus was meant to lead us to a conclusion that bears no relation to reality. We are not dealing with a situation here that would take us anywhere close to the situation in Cyprus. We are talking about restrictions on uprating which, on the Government’s own figures, would amount to something like £1.9 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we are debating a different Bill. If the noble Lord wants to debate a proposition about public sector pay, let us have some propositions and we can consider that. The noble Lord knows full well that he is trying to lead the Opposition in a particular direction.

I come back to the point that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is very straightforward. It just says that an automatic 1% uprating would not apply automatically if inflation reached a certain level. That seems entirely unobjectionable and I cannot see why the Government cannot accept it. If the Government do not accept it, they have to say what level of inflation, what level of real decrease in people’s circumstances, they would find acceptable, because that would be the consequence of rejecting the amendment. This is a very modest proposition. I really am surprised at the trouble that the Government are having with accepting it. I would hope at least that the noble Lord’s colleagues would stick with him on this issue as the arguments that we have heard against it are quite spurious.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkwood would mean that the Bill would apply only if inflation was below 3% for the purposes of uprating in that year.

I shall provide a reminder of what the official inflation forecasts currently show. While inflation is forecast to be above target—that is, 2% in the near term—it will fall back towards the target in the medium term. In the final year of the Bill, the current forecasts show that inflation for the purposes of uprating in that year will be 2.2%. That was the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the Autumn Statement. The OBR produces independent and authoritative forecasts for the economy and public finances and we take decisions based on them.

However, the OBR is not alone in forecasting that inflation will fall back to target in the medium term. That is also the view of other major economic forecasters. I refer to the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England. Indeed, the latest assessment of independent forecasters in February was that UK inflation would be 2.2% in the 12 months to quarter 1 of 2014 and in the 12 months to quarter 1 of 2015. That is an average assessment of people who make their living by doing this job.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that he thought there was a 50% chance of inflation being over 3% in the period covered by the Bill. I remind the House that that means a 50% chance that inflation will be over 3% by September 2014, because that is the last point at which the Bill has an effect in terms of benefit uprating. All I can say to my noble friend, for whom I have the greatest regard, is that his view is just not shared by any reputable international or national body that is making forecasts about inflation.

[Lord Newby]

I am coming on to that. In fact, I will deal with it now. It is relevant to the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. The purpose of the Bill, as we have debated about 20 times since Second Reading, is to give some certainty to the Government’s fiscal plans. The reason we are doing that is that a number of international bodies and rating agencies have said that this has a specific and significant impact on the way that they view the UK’s prospects. Entrenching something in a Bill has the effect of giving a degree of certainty, which is immensely useful with regard to the markets.

As my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said, there seems to be a sense that the markets think that we in the UK are in a very good position and that a little tweak here and there in terms of borrowing will make no difference. That is not the way the markets work. It starts off with a little tweak and then the markets feel that something is going wrong. Once that feeling takes hold, the markets can move very quickly.

As we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, it does not need much of an increase in inflation to make a huge difference to the Government’s finances and the lives of ordinary people.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the noble Lord tell me how the markets have moved in response to the Government borrowing £200 billion more than originally planned?

[Lord Newby]

The reason why they have not moved is that the Government have not changed our underlying policy.

The effect of a 1% increase in inflation on someone with a £100,000 mortgage is £1,000. These are big differences and a 1% increase in the interest rate is by no means out of line with the interest rates being paid by a raft of European countries whose borrowing as a percentage of GDP is significantly less than ours. The risk in terms of interest rates is real and present. It is not some airy-fairy possibility that would come into play only if the Government were suddenly to go mad and spend huge amounts of money. It can happen with a relatively small change.

The Government remain committed to low and stable inflation. As we have said umpteen times, it is good for individuals and for business and is a prerequisite for economic prosperity. That is why the Government set the remit for the independent Monetary Policy Committee to target inflation. The Chancellor will set the remit at Budget tomorrow, as usual. I do not know what the remit will be but I know it will not be, to quote my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, to loosen the constraints so that inflation rips. I am confident that the Government’s commitment to low inflation will remain.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, “What happens if, contrary to what the Government have said, inflation does rip? Suppose we have a circumstance that we don’t believe is going to happen”. If Governments legislated for every circumstance that they did not believe was going to happen, we would have Bills thousands of pages long. The Government can legislate and act only on the basis of a central assumption of what the future, in respect of the particular area of public policy they are dealing with, is going to be like, and that is what we have done here.

I turn to the issue that many people have faced and in many cases continue to face—real-terms reductions in pay. Inflation risk is something that everyone has to face in everyday life. We have been taking about public servants but let us just talk about them a bit more. Public servants have seen their pay frozen and then increased by 1%. When inflation rose to 5.2% in September 2011, many public servants were in the middle of a pay freeze. The Opposition supported that policy and there was no inflation guarantee within it. This includes, for example, many hard-pressed personal advisers in jobcentres who are on modest incomes and are having to see restraint in their pay in these very tough times. That is the right policy. However, the consequences have been that many out-of-work benefit recipients have seen higher cash—yes, cash—increases in their benefits payments over the past three years than many Jobcentre Plus personal advisers have seen in their salaries.

These are difficult but necessary decisions. We must remember the tough circumstances that many people in work have faced and continue to face across the country as we deal with the effects of the economic crisis. As I have said, we believe that this Bill is necessary to set out a clear and credible plan to make savings from welfare, help reduce the deficit and restore economic recovery. We are taking the tough decisions because it is necessary to give confidence to the markets. Adding to the Bill conditions such as those proposed by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood would diminish the confidence that we require.

I now turn to Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin. This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to instruct the Social Security Advisory Committee to commence a review of the level of uprating if inflation reaches 3.2% in any of the relevant periods as defined in the amendment. I hope that during this and previous debates both I and my noble friend Lady Stowell have been able to convey to the House that we understand and share noble Lords’ concerns about measuring the impacts of the Bill and all our reforms on individuals. However, as the noble Baroness slightly suggested in her speech, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.

Noble Lords will be aware that we already have comprehensive arrangements in place to report on the impacts of government policy. First, we have already published a full account of the impacts of this Bill based on the forecast set out by the OBR. Again, these forecasts are broadly shared by the other main economic forecasters. Noble Lords will be aware that we have also published the child poverty impacts of the Bill. The Government already have a suite of ongoing reporting mechanisms in place and report on the levels of poverty every year in the households below average income series. It is only by looking at poverty issues in the round that we can have a meaningful debate about poverty. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government are currently analysing responses to their consultation on new measures of child poverty, measures that will attempt to capture the wider reality of poverty in the UK today.

Later this year we shall see the first of what will become an annual report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, which will report on the Government’s progress towards reducing child poverty, in particular meeting the targets in the Act and implementing the most recent UK strategy. This commission, chaired by Alan Milburn, will report to Parliament and will enable detailed scrutiny of the Government’s work to eradicate child poverty.

Finally, the Government regularly produce an analysis of the cumulative impact of changes on households across the income distribution. This information is published by the Treasury at every Budget and other major fiscal events. This analysis will use updated inflation projections. We believe that it is a better approach than that in the amendment as it looks at the cumulative impacts of all changes rather than artificially isolating just one policy. The publication of cumulative impacts is a coalition initiative and was not produced by the previous Administration.

The Government have taken unprecedented steps to increase transparency and enable effective scrutiny of policy-making by publishing detailed distributional analysis of the impacts of their reforms on households. Our published distributional analysis goes further than that of any previous Government. Having these mechanisms in place means that we are confident that the Government will be able to scrutinise the effects of this Bill and of our whole suite of welfare reforms. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2013

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Thursday 7th March 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for introducing this order. I find myself on pretty much precisely the same page as the noble Lord, Lord German, concerning the points and questions that he raised. When we considered this matter in May last year, we looked forward to the introduction of auto-enrolment and acknowledged the contribution of the many people along the way who had made it happen. Indeed, we also acknowledged the role of this Government in taking it forward. Perhaps this would be an opportune moment to seek an early update on how it is all going.

As we set out last year, we see the merit of simplicity in the earnings band limits being aligned with the national insurance lower and upper earnings limits. This is notwithstanding that the raising of the former and the reduction of the latter means that the band is squeezed by some £1,100 for the upcoming year, with the Government estimating a reduction in pension savings of some £30 million. However, we welcome the fact that the broader definition of earnings, or its equivalent in other schemes, is being retained.

Our main concern, which I am sure will come as no surprise to the Minister, is the one touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord German, of raising the earnings trigger to the new personal allowance level. On the Government’s own figures, this will exclude around 420,000 individuals, 76% of whom are women. Of course, this is on top of those who have been excluded by aligning the trigger to the personal allowance threshold in the current year. We have heard some of the justification for that. It concerns simplicity and whether people are in a position to afford to save.

However, it seems that there is a breakdown in the Government’s logic. Let us say that the Government got the balance right in the current year. Looking at the current year, why should the increase in the personal allowance for other policy measures, which we may or may not agree with, by more than the rate of inflation and more than earnings cause the balance in adjustment as to what people can afford still to equate with the personal allowance threshold? I do not think there is a logical connection between the two. However, we are where we are on that.

The Government’s explanation was that persistent low earners tend to find that, through pensions and benefits, the state provides a level of income in retirement similar to that in working life. Of course, that assumes that today’s low earners will be tomorrow’s low earners. We would hope that as a matter of government policy that would not be the case. The noble Lord, Lord German, touched on the much heralded single-tier pension, which is supposed to negate the need for earnings-related support in the future. It takes us back to the big debates that we had around “pays to save”, when the whole concept of auto-enrolment was being considered and the structure was being put in place. If the single-tier pension is to be introduced and is successful, negating a whole raft of earnings-related means-tested support, that should make it easier to make the judgment about when it will pay to save.

I turn to the issue of tax relief and relief at source. If people are excluded from auto-enrolment due to the personal tax threshold, they are potentially missing out on this chunk of government support. The noble Lord, Lord German, raised absolutely the right point by asking what employers are required to do to make sure that people are aware of this potential benefit. I hope that the Minister can confirm that there is absolutely no intention of changing the structure of tax relief. I think it was confirmed last year that NEST will operate the relief-at-source system, so anyone who was going to be enrolled or who wished to opt into NEST would receive the benefit of that tax support.

I end on the same point as the noble Lord, Lord German, which is: if this is the way things are going to go and if there is to be this increasing raising of the threshold, which will really change the landscape over time if it continues, what publicity will be given to the right to opt in? That becomes ever more important if the threshold is to continue to be raised. What are the Government planning to do generally? What are the requirements on employers, so that those who miss out on auto-enrolment at least have the chance to consider the opt-in route? The key point of auto-enrolment was to deal with inertia, to get people into pension saving because they had to make a decision to opt out. Once you remove that requirement from them, inertia reverts and the onus is on individuals. I think that they have to be above the lower earnings limit to opt in. What support and encouragement will they be given? They should at least know that they have the choice. Given what is happening to the personal tax threshold, that is a key issue for us.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. The questions have been about not the people who will be automatically enrolled but those who might or might not.

Part of the context for this is that even with the uprating of the tax-free limit, in terms of income level we are talking about 29 hours at the minimum wage, so the vast bulk of people in the category we are discussing—people who could join if they wish but who are not automatically enrolled—are likely to be part-time workers. That comes to the final point of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about what their career paths will be. I would expect quite a number of people in that category now would not necessarily be part-time workers for the rest of their lives. A lot of them will be women with children, who may go on to have a full-time job when their children are older, and we would hope that they would do so if that is appropriate. Of course if they do, they would then be automatically enrolled.

On how we make sure that people know of their rights, which is obviously important, employers must write to employees with information about rights setting out the full picture. The department has developed a language guide and template letters to help employers to communicate clearly with people new to pension saving. I must say that I have not seen that letter. I will now make it my business to read it. If it is a letter that communicates clearly on pensions, it will probably be the first one that I have seen. I am sure that the finest minds in the department have been worrying about that. It is a major problem. By and large, people are ignorant about their pension savings and pension options. It is a challenge in any scheme, but particularly here, where a lot of the people who may be in this category will never have had a pension before. I will enjoy reading that letter.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked for a definition of “inappropriate”. It is easy to see why for a single-parent family with children, where the mother is working part-time, it is not so much inappropriate as impossible. There just is not the amount of money in the household to enable much saving to take place. Another example of where it might be inappropriate would be if a household had built up debts and had large outstanding payments due, as many people on low incomes do. It would probably be in their financial interest to try to get those debts down before undertaking any savings. I am not sure that is the complete answer but I can see circumstances where, if you were a debt adviser or financial adviser to people who had got into debt and were on low incomes, you would be advising them to pay off those debts first.

There was a question about relief-at-source schemes and how these will be made clear. I hope that the letter explaining to people what their requirements are also explains the relief-at-source mechanism, and I will be looking at that. If it is able to do that in very clear terms, that will be an even greater achievement. I have great confidence in officials at the Department for Work and Pensions being able to clarify what most people find opaque. We are still looking at how relief-at-source schemes are operating as the new system rolls forward. The evidence so far is that schemes aimed at this population are actually using relief-at-source, so at least in that respect the system is working well.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked how many people have been auto-enrolled and how this process is going. We expect that by this April at least 1 million individuals will have been automatically enrolled. The early signs are very positive: some big employers who have gone in first are reporting very low opt-out rates. However, the department has a full evaluation programme and we will be able to produce our first reports on this in the summer.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also asked whether it was the intention to change the relief-at-source rules. This is a Treasury matter, and we are near the Budget, but I think it is fair to say—and if I am sacked for this I shall blame the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—that I am not aware of any intention to change the relief-at-source rules. I hope I have answered the questions that noble Lords have asked me.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

If the noble Lord gets sacked for that statement, I shall campaign on his behalf. When he has got over the excitement of reading the letter that he is going to peruse, would he share it with us? That would be helpful.

[Lord Newby]

I will, because it deserves to have the widest possible readership. With those comments, I commend the order.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

I am extremely sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord.

In conclusion, I repeat that the amendments in this group would mean that the Bill would not deliver on its purpose of enabling the Government to set out clear and certain plans to control welfare spending and help secure the economic recovery. That is why they should be resisted.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, perhaps I may wind up on behalf of my noble friend, who moved Amendment 1 on my behalf. I thank the Minister for his range of responses. I emphasise that, yes, we believe the amendment would negate the Bill, but it would not prevent the Government doing what they wanted to, given a chance, over a three-year period. However, we believe that it is wrong to lock in a real-terms cut for three years. Effectively, it is for two years, given that the first year is by way of regulation.

On issues of tax, the Minister, in response to the Second Reading debate, said that a 50% tax rate would not garner the revenue we believed because people would order their affairs. Ordering their affairs, as set out in some detail in the HMRC publication that looked at this issue, would involve switching income from one year to another. It is quite possible that, as we speak and draw to the end of the current tax year and move towards, possibly, a 45% tax year, a great deal of income will shift from this year into next year. Will the Minister say whether he thinks this is okay and acquiesces with it, or whether it is a matter that the Government should address in some form? If you simply sit back, clever and well resourced people will reduce their tax liabilities as fully as they can. However, it does not inevitably have to be that way, particularly when the people who will pick up the burden of that avoidance are at the very low end of the income scale.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friend Lady Lister for this amendment and the manner in which they have spoken to it. I start by reiterating that obviously our overall objective is to get rid of the 1% uprating cap throughout the Bill. Obviously, if we were successful, the protection that both speakers are seeking here would be unnecessary, but if we are not able to do that, we have to consider a range of mitigations to these cuts. The aspect identified by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—the bearing of inflation risks much in excess of OBR forecasts—is certainly one that should concern us all. As it is, on the basis of the OBR forecast, by 2015-16 the 1% uprating will imply a real cut of some 4%. Depending on what happens to inflation, that real cut could be much higher. We have heard a range of figures from both speakers that could flow from that.

We need to recognise that these real cuts lower the base for whatever the uprating may be for the future. Studies point to the rate of inflation for what might be termed as essential items being higher than the overall rate, with essentials for this purpose including such items as food, heating, transport, fares and water charges. These are costs which are largely inescapable for low income households. The briefing we have had from USDAW records electricity prices rising by 3.9% and gas by 5.2% up to December 2012, with the poorest 10% of households spending 17% of their income on food, which rose by 3.8% in the period to December. As it stands, this Bill places the whole of the inflation risk on benefit and tax credit recipients, irrespective of the size of the risk. However, if inflation is less than 1% the Government can take the benefit of that and, if they so choose, uprate by less than 1%.

It was the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and his noble friend Lord German who demanded of the Government at Second Reading that there should be no further cuts beyond those set out in the Bill. Of course they got a dusty answer from the Minister, but the problem is that we do not know the level of the real cuts which flow from this Bill because we do not know the rate of inflation. The point made by my noble friend Lady Lister is that inserting an upper rate of 3% should not be taken to imply that real cuts up to this level are acceptable, but that automatic cuts above that level are certainly not.

I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment at this stage—I think he said it was probing in nature—because we believe that the right course of action is to eliminate the 1% cap in its entirety. But if we are unable to do that on Report, the type of backstop being sought by this amendment is something which deserves our support—subject to only one exception, which is that the Minister can give assurances about how poor people are to be protected from inflation, a phenomenon over which they themselves have absolutely no control.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the effect of Amendment 6 would be that if inflation as measured by the September CPI was to rise to 3% or above in 2014-15 or 2015-16, Clause 1 would not apply. Amendment 10 would do the same for Clause 2.

As I set out earlier today, a key purpose of the Bill is to deliver clear and credible plans for our public finances. It is only through having these plans that we can maintain confidence and keep interest rates at near-record low levels. We have clearly stated our intentions on uprating policy for the next three years, but the plans for 2014-15 and 2015-16 are made possible only by this Bill. Adding conditions to the Bill would remove that certainty and weaken the credibility of our plan to reduce public spending and tackle the deficit.

The Autumn Statement operating decisions were taken on the basis of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s CPI forecast. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, explained, the OBR does not forecast inflation to reach 3%. The CPI forecasts for the purpose of uprating in 2014-15 and 2015-16 are 2.6% and 2.2%. The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is committed to maintaining price stability, which is defined by the Government as an inflation target of 2% as measured by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index. Inflation is forecast by the MPC and the OBR to be above the 2% target in the near term but is forecast to fall back towards the target in the medium term. The inflation target is not set by the Governor of the Bank of England. The inflation target is set under the terms of the Bank of England Act 1997 on an annual basis by the Chancellor, and that will continue to be the case whoever the Governor of the Bank of England is.

As I said at Second Reading, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, helpfully reminded me, these are forecasts and targets. External factors and unforeseen events can produce a different outcome—on the upside or the downside. Nobody can say with absolute certainty what inflation is going to be two years from now.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Newby

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, that is an interesting question. I am not sure that I could quote a precedent, but the fact that it may be novel does not mean that it is not a good idea. Are we not dealing here with something that is quite a significant step? To date, there has been the requirement for agreement. We know why agreement could not be reached when we tried it and why, although it has not run its course yet, it is proving to be challenging as well.

We are moving from a position where there had to be agreement from everyone to one where there need be no agreement. That is in the context of a compensation scheme that will impact the lives of tens of thousands of people in a very big way. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that a process should be undertaken whereby Parliament has the chance to ask whether these have been genuine negotiations. I should make it clear that I do not in any way challenge what has happened today as not being a genuine attempt to reach agreement—I am certain that it has.

A big step is being taken here in asking others, in particular the trade unions, to give up that right for agreement, so requiring that there be a process of Parliament to say that the requirements of consultation and engagement have been met should be something that they would wish to look at. I stress that I am not saying that Parliament should have the opportunity to unpick an agreement and to substitute its own view on what the agreement should be, as that should come from the negotiation. That is the basis on which I moved Amendment 3.

[Lord Newby]

Following up on that point, if it is the noble Lord’s intention that Parliament should not unpick an agreement reached by the Government and the unions, what would be the consequence of Parliament not approving a deal that had been struck as a result of collective negotiation? Giving Parliament a veto over the negotiations seems slightly odd. I thought that noble Lords opposite were trying to get a system going again under which there was free collective bargaining, in which Parliament will not be involved, and that the Government and the unions would just negotiate a deal.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Lord raises a good point. The problem with drafting one’s amendments and writing one’s speaking notes later is that one realises that one might have covered matters in a fuller way. However, if, for example, in a particular case Parliament was clear on the basis of the report that there had not been a proper, full and sensible negotiation, one could envisage that the adverse changes to the compensation scheme—we are talking about adverse changes—would not be supported and that there had to be another process to address that. I accept that the amendment as drafted does not flesh out that detail, but we will reflect on that before Report stage.