Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I apologise for once again coming in a bit late to the debate. On this occasion, I was at a meeting outside London and got badly held up by the demo currently taking place in Whitehall.

I should declare an indirect interest in that my wife, as I think most in the House know, is a cabinet member of Braintree District Council and has a strong interest in social housing matters. I nevertheless wish to speak because, had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds not pipped me at the post, my name would have been on this amendment. I strongly support it and agree particularly with the words that have been uttered by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood.

I am not in a position as a result of my lateness to repeat all the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, because I have not heard them. I have no doubt that, had I heard them, I would have agreed with them, because I have discussed the matter with him on a number of occasions.

I simply want to bring a bit of information from the coalface, as opposed to the rarefied atmosphere of Whitehall policy discussions. I happen to have in my hand a note issued by Braintree District Council about the new rules on underoccupancy. It thinks that these have probably the most far-reaching policy impact of any of the changes in the Bill. It makes the point that it applies different, more generous rules than those that are nationally applied to tenants claiming housing benefit. It gives priority for a family to move when the oldest child is five years old or more, not 10, and it recognises that this policy of using the younger age of five will be wrecked by the Bill.

Similarly, it tries to rehouse people in advance of change, because of the delays that occur if they need a three-bedroom or four-bedroom house. I shall not quote the whole document, but it states that people are likely to wait for more than a year to move in the case of needing a four-bed property and a long time where they have children growing up. Let me quote just one sentence:

“We therefore felt that it was better that a family, for example, with a boy aged 8 and a girl aged 6 should move to a home with 3 bedrooms and not be allocated a 2 bed and have to move again shortly afterwards. We felt this was better for neighbourhoods, for children’s schooling and so on, as well as reducing the pressure on our allocations process”.

That makes complete social sense to me.

I say in passing, as another illustration of one of my concerns about government policy as a whole, that we have just passed a Localism Act purporting to give local authorities greater freedom to make this kind of choice, and we now seek to pass a Welfare Reform Act telling them that localism is neither here nor there—they will do what they are told by central government. Somebody might perhaps try to explain.

There are a number of other examples from the note that I could quote, but let me quote an additional note that should ring a bell at least on these Benches, about the rural effect. This was a subsequent note, which I happen to have in my hand, and it relates to a large village, which I shall not name, in the Braintree district. Greenfields—that is the housing association—gives details of what housing it has in this village and goes on to say:

“This is a good example of a location where potentially, people claiming benefit would be forced to leave if they could not afford the extra rent to stay in the family home. [The village] is interesting because it is a relatively big village with a high overall level of stock and yet the balance of homes makes this policy a real problem for people needing to downsize from a 3 bed to a 2 bed. Clearly, people in smaller villages”—

many rural—

“are likely to face even more acute problems if they need to downsize. Given that we come under pressure to give people a priority to stay in villages, the policy looks like it may achieve the opposite”.

The rural effects of this are not to be underestimated and my guess is that my noble friend’s colleagues in the Commons will face a barrage if and when this comes into effect. Indeed, I would venture to say that if this comes into effect less than two years before an election, with the impact that could be involved in some of the figures that have been discussed, it will not last five minutes when it starts.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of First Wessex Housing Association and Housing 21. I am pleased to speak in this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I think everyone in the House today understands the extreme pressure of the need to reduce the housing benefit budget and to tackle the issue of underoccupancy at a time of housing shortages. We should not forget that underoccupancy of social housing is nearly matched by 50 per cent overoccupancy.

In Committee, the Minister set an objective for the changes he was proposing. He said:

“Housing benefit … will become more balanced in a way that will restore fairness, encourage better use of our existing social housing stock and encourage more people into employment”.—[Official Report, 18/11/11; col. GC 71.]

The problem is that the market for social housing is not flexible; it is quite rigid. It is a fight to get a home and, in severe shortages, requirements and needs are not easily matched. We wish we had a situation where people could have a better choice, but it is simply not possible. What we have available in any locality is way short of need, and often what is available cannot specifically match need. On the issue of underoccupancy, we know that there will be something like 180,000 under retirement age who want to move but that the annual available housing for them is about one-third of this.

Housing requirements change through life. In a rigid market where people cannot easily match their requirements to supply, some flexibility is required. Otherwise, allocations will be even more difficult. The Minister’s objective—balance to restore fairness—will not be fair if an individual wants to move home and cannot. The person will have to find extra income and, in the current economic climate, as my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, said, it will be extremely dubious whether they will be able to find the significant extra income they need. Let us not forget that in this situation—my noble friend also referred to this—underoccupation is greater in the north, and so there is a regional dimension. Thirty pounds a week is a lot of money for people least able to afford it, and 150,000 households will have to find nearly twice that.

The Minister also said that one of the objectives is to provide balance to make better use of our existing stock, but the reality is that the existing rigidities will be distorted by this change. Available new housing stock will now have to be used to move people. The people who probably need the most encouragement to move are those who are retired—who are underoccupying—and we will not now have the facility to move them. They are the people whose household costs need to be reduced. Indeed, we improve the housing benefit bill by moving them. As the housing stock is re-let, we will be required under the Government’s housing benefit reforms to let some of these houses at affordable rents. So for those people who take on that stock, we will probably be paying out a higher proportion in housing benefit.

The Minister gave us, in his Committee speech, figures from the future network. Under the claimants benefit research, he said that of the 670,000, 25 per cent want to move; 50 per cent will not move; 29 per cent are looking for increased work and income—which is going to be difficult; 15 per cent say that they will take in a lodger, and 35 per cent are said to be likely to go into arrears. Those are pretty dramatic figures. He also said that over the next couple of years we will look at putting strategies in place to make sure that this does not happen. The problem is we only have 15 months in which to do this, not a couple of years, as the measure comes in in April 2013. That is madness.

We have already heard this referred to as a room tax. In fact, in Committee, somebody referred to the window tax. It was not in the time of Queen Anne, as the Minister mentioned; it was William and Mary—1696. I looked it up; two shillings per window. That is interesting; £11.20 in real money—it is not much different. I am assured also by the research that the phrase “daylight robbery” did not originate from that time. We can imagine, however, the political campaign—and the slogans—should this room tax come in on a single day. I do not fancy the Chancellor—I hope my colleagues will remember this—standing up in March 2013 to give his Budget speech when in April 2013 this change will be coming in. I bet you he will have to move politically at that time, even if he does not move now.

We have to expect that 25 per cent of people will move. How is this to be organised in 15 months? There are not enough houses being built to do this. Housing associations do not even know how many and who will be affected. There is a lack of information. What are the strategies? What must the Government do in this situation? What do they need to say today?

The first proposal is that of the noble Lord, Lord Best: allow an extra room for flexibility. It is probably the best proposal, but—as we will be told—this will take £300 million of the £500 million savings. It is not actually a great deal of money. I just ask the House to think what the Chancellor will be thinking in March 2013. It is not clear that the £300 million in savings will come through. I expect that a lot of children and other relatives will suddenly emerge in these houses. Re-lets, as I have already mentioned, would lead to higher housing benefit claims. There are also the costs of moving, plus the costs of discretionary housing grants, and so on. Retired people who we want to move into smaller accommodation—saving housing benefit and saving their household costs—will not be able to move.

The second proposal is to extend the transition so it coincides at a minimum with the anniversary of tenancies; that ideally, as the Minister has already said, we should spread this change over a couple of years so that people can adjust. If you are trying to take from the poorest people these sums of money, they need time to adjust. So do the housing associations and the housing providers. They need time to adjust to allow a better transition, to allow the adjustments in housing stock. We cannot expect everybody to simply change on day one in 15 months’ time.

The third option is to extend discretionary housing grants. We hear this on each occasion, but we are not sure how that is going to be administered.

I urge the Government to move on this issue, for sensible housing requirements, for fairness and for assuring that the poorest and the least resourced will not assume a significant burden at a very difficult time. Above all, the providers also need time and flexibility to adjust the housing supply to the new demands and the new needs.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I have two groups of people to whom I want to refer. My noble friend Lady Thomas referred to them in Committee, and I referred to one of them. What does the Minister anticipate doing for foster carers? We have already been told that we have a shortage of foster caring in this country, and foster carers need to keep a bedroom to be able to host and look after children in foster care. It is very important indeed—and I think that the Minister acknowledged this in his response in Committee—that something needs to be done to accommodate the needs of that group of people.

The second group of people are those who have had adaptations to their properties. Those adaptations probably cost the public purse quite substantial sums of money, so it does not make sense, for example, to require people to move from one property that has a stair lift to another where a stair lift has to be put in place. Can my noble friend tell us what he anticipates doing for both those groups?

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, the case made in the excellent opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, did not concentrate so much on the disability side, which we will come to in another bank of amendments, but was very strong indeed. Yes, the second part of Amendment 48 applies to disability, but her main thrust was on the adequacy of supply of houses.

The noble Baroness referred in particular to the situation in rural Norfolk. I can certainly vouch for the circumstances in the areas that I know in rural Wales, where this is an enormous problem because so much social and council housing in rural areas, particularly in beautiful rural areas, was bought under the right to buy legislation of the 1980s. Many of those properties that used to be social housing are now second homes. If anyone is expected to move in order to match the circumstances of the housing benefit permitted under this legislation, such people just will not find accommodation to meet those needs. It is suggested that they will find it in the private sector, but in rural areas, particularly where tourism is a major industry, the private housing sector is dominated by the rent that can be attained in the summer months from the tourism industry. Therefore, the likelihood of finding a suitable place is remote indeed.

My fear is that so many exceptions to the proposed legislation will arise that it will not be workable. We heard about the circumstances in Glasgow and the problems of disabled people who will be caught in this. With regard to the rural dimension, the one aspect that I would like to see is the building particularly of bungalows in the proximity of villages to provide the housing need, albeit that that would be a longer-term solution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned. One knows that the one category of house in overwhelming demand everywhere is the bungalow. A programme that bought land on the borders of villages that was currently outside the development boundaries and towns into those boundaries, and that was therefore possible to acquire at an intermediate price between the market price for building land and the much lower value of agricultural land, should help to provide a stimulus for the building industry and an answer, over a period of time, for some of the imbalances in the housing stock.

I realise that this does not come under the purview of the Minister, but perhaps the Government could, in the seamless web that they create, think about that possibility as a longer-term solution.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of First Wessex Housing Group and chair-designate of Housing 21. I also appreciate the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Turner, but underoccupation is a problem when there are great shortages in housing. It is fair to accept that we need to address this problem, but it would be unfair if we do not get right the details for the transition of these proposals.

I agreed particularly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, in that we have to accept that we are dealing with people’s homes. They may be social homes or council houses, but they are people’s homes. We are not dealing simply with a marketable commodity. Some 670,000 tenants of working age are affected by these proposals and, as the noble Baroness said, many of the people in these homes are disabled. There are two fundamental problems. One is that underoccupation does not necessarily coincide with where there is the greatest housing need. The other is that the availability of supply to correct the problem is limited. I had the figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned but in a different context; I thought that there were 180,000 social tenants underoccupying two-bedroom homes and that if we wanted to move them into one-bedroom homes, in the past year only 68,000 became available. That seems to be a critical figure.

We know that the other problem is that if we drive people out of social housing in the public sector, we may well add to public spending through the higher rents and the allowances that will have to be paid in the private sector. We want to hear from the Minister, in due course if not today, on the need to get the period of transition right to allow people to adapt and for the stock to adapt as well. We should concentrate on genuine occupation that can be corrected, and we should consider leaving out certain categories: disabled people, foster carers and those in supported housing. We should also concentrate on homes with more than two bedrooms that are underoccupied, and we should, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, look at a programme of bungalows and one-bedroom homes for older people who want to downsize. I have recently been involved in a scheme where people’s pride in their new homes is remarkable. We had to encourage them to move, but when they saw what was available they were very willing and proud to do so. However, if we concentrate now on the transition as the result of all these changes, we shall dry up the number of homes and the capacity to help people who genuinely want to move. Getting the transition right is therefore key to this change.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Wigley suggested, I will leave the arguments about disabled people until our debate on the next group of amendments, and talk first about people who are not able to move because of a lack of supply. The Riverside housing association says that for those who stay put, the loss of benefit,

“will have a very significant impact on household income at a time when tenants face huge pressures from rising fuel and food prices”.

Social landlords house,

“some of the poorest households in the country … Such losses would enforce difficult choices between subsistence items such as eating well, clothing the children and, of course, paying the rent”.

Riverside points out that two-thirds of its tenants have,

“a net household income … of less than £10,200 per annum”.

This will cause devastating hardship.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for tabling the take note Motion. On the face of it, the proposal to extend the age range for single people who receive local housing allowance from 25 to 34 seems entirely reasonable. I, myself, lived in shared flats or houses at that age, as I could not possibly afford a flat or house in London on my salary from the Liberal Party. However, although my fellow housemates and I tried to be careful when interviewing potential new sharers, we did not expect them to belong to particularly vulnerable groups or be on housing benefit. The only tension came when boys wanted to get girlfriends in, or vice versa.

The Government, to their credit, have, as we have heard, made two exemptions. I shall mention the exemption for homeless people who have spent more than three months in a hostel, which is particularly welcome because of the difficulty of moving those in hostel accommodation on. Here I declare an interest as patron of the Winchester Churches Nightshelter, which has an especially impressive record of moving clients on to suitable accommodation.

However, even with those two exemptions, there is a great deal of concern among all the stakeholders who were consulted about the policy. In fact, we see from the consultation outcome that none of the respondents supported the proposed changes and the majority questioned the rationale for them. The $64,000 question is whether the proposals will save the taxpayer money or cause even more to be spent by local authorities having to find extra emergency accommodation. The SSAC report answers that in clear terms. Thank goodness, I have a different sentence to cite from that quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. The report states:

“The evidence we have seen points to this being a high risk approach to cutting costs that does not take account of potentially negative impacts on other areas of public policy and potential increases in other areas of public expenditure”.

The Government’s solution is to increase discretionary housing payments to local authorities to support those in the most vulnerable situations who do not fit the exempted categories, but the discretionary housing payments will be spread extremely thinly across a lot of housing hotspots because of the changes to the 30th percentile. Such payments can be regarded only as a temporary sticking plaster. An awful lot is being asked of this particular pot of money, which will not go very far when spread across the poorer boroughs of London, not to mention those of all the other large conurbations. In Winchester, homelessness is increasing dramatically, with evidence from letting agents suggesting that fewer than 10 per cent of properties are affordable. As I have said before, Winchester is a very expensive place in which to be poor.

As my noble friend said, are there really enough houses and flats available for multi-occupation in areas where there are likely to be jobs, particularly low-paid jobs? In a buoyant market, will landlords really be willing to reduce their rents to let properties to what could be a potentially unstable cohort of people, when landlords will have no difficulty finding tenants who will pay the market rent?

In my view, this is a worrying experiment. The Social Security Advisory Committee report states that,

“the Department knows very little about either the shared accommodation market”,

or those who live in that sector. As we have heard, that committee recommends that the Government should gather evidence as a matter of urgency with the proposals introduced gradually and evaluated. That sounds like a very good idea to me.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I am very pleased to join in this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood. I declare an interest as chair of First Wessex Housing Group, which has a number of shared-accommodation facilities, and I am also chair designate of Housing 21.

Sadly, this is an example of government spending cutbacks whereby the broadest backs are not assuming the biggest burden—probably the reverse. Among the 62,000 people who it is thought will be affected by these changes, there are a lot of very vulnerable people. The fundamental problem is that we simply do not know how many.

I accept that this is a tough decision in very tough times, and there are a number of positives in what the Government have done. The transition period is obviously very helpful, extra money has been provided for discretionary housing payments and certain of the exemptions have been widened—although we have heard my noble friend Lord Kirkwood’s reservations on those. It is probably also true that, in these tough times and in the current climate, it is inevitable that we probably have to encourage older children to stay at home with their families. Obviously, people in the private purchase market are having to do that as well. However, one of the problems is that we are often dealing here with families of children where the family relationships have broken down.

There are a number of negatives to this change. First, as I mentioned, we simply do not know who these people are nor, as a result, do we know how they will adapt. What we do know is that there are certainly some very vulnerable groups here, as my noble friend Lord Kirkwood mentioned, including people with mental health issues and drug addiction issues, young offenders and people trying to regroup from broken marriages and broken relationships. We also simply do not know what pressures on other areas of the public purse will result from these changes.

Finally, there is a great shortage of shared accommodation in certain areas, especially in rural areas. One thing that has not been anticipated is the further market pressures that will result. For example, one of the hostels that I am familiar with is designed to encourage young people to become independent in the community and to get their own accommodation. By increasing the pressure in the marketplace from those aged between 25 and 35, we will make it much more difficult for landlords to accept people who are under 25, who are much more difficult to deal with, so landlords will go for the older people. That will mean worse problems in that market as well.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment as someone who is certainly not an expert in pension provision; I admit to finding a lot of it rather confusing. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is a very positive and useful way forward.

What concerns me is not the arguments that we heard earlier about the 2.6 million women having to wait longer than expected, the 330,000 who will have to wait 18 months or even the 33,000 who will have to wait two years to receive their pension, but the fact that, of the current pensioners who live in poverty, two-thirds are women. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made estimates about the poverty level, which it set at around £14,000 a year, and recognises that one in four women retiring today has less than £10,000 a year to live on. We know that women earn less pay on average, while taking time out to raise children means that they earn less over their lifetime. For me, though, the inequality in savings that women have access to is a stark reminder of where many women live today. The average savings in pension schemes of women between 51 and 59 are £37,000, compared to the £54,000 that men hold.

We have heard many case studies. I am very fortunate. I employ someone who is 56 and has a sister who is four years older. Maureen will have to wait 10 years beyond the age of her sister to receive her pension. This is someone who worked for a number of years, took time out to bring up a disabled child, went back into part-time work and, with nothing impelling her to contribute to a pension scheme, made decisions to try to save money but also had to recognise that there was a huge potential loss of salary in contributing to a personal pension scheme. I fear that we are going to alienate a large group of women and penalise them for making sound family choices to stay at home and bring up children and look after them.

It may be true that we need change and need to move on. It might be true that women have relied too heavily on their husbands’ careers and earnings in setting their pension limits, but I strongly believe that women deserve to have more time to adjust to this change in thinking.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

We are very sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s amendment. I congratulate her on an important contribution to this debate on an issue that the Government must address. A number of reasons have been explained, in this debate and in the preceding debate, on why that is important. Men are not being disadvantaged by more than one year, but over half a million women are. The period of notice is inadequate. Women in this age group are some of the most disadvantaged in terms of their pension provision. We have to accept that there is a contradiction with the coalition agreement. We are expecting some assurances from the Government in this debate, but we also accept that this is largely a negotiating matter with the Treasury. We welcome the announcement in the Budget of the new basic pension.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, complained at Second Reading that the Pensions Bill ignored the £140 new basic pension, and said that it was like Hamlet without the prince. Now we have Hamlet with the prince but without a script. We want to see some details of the government proposals before committing ourselves to new transitional arrangements. We know that in present value terms the amendment will cost £7 billion, but the Government need to address the problem and come back with a considered amendment during the passage of this Bill in the other House with regard to how women affected by these transitional arrangements will benefit from the new higher basic pension.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I will be brief because a lot of the arguments were effectively aired on all sides on the previous amendment. I support this amendment. I spent many hours—I will not say happy hours—last weekend trying to find a compromise, what I would call a fallback amendment, that would address the issue that we have all identified today. That issue is the women who are seeing an acceleration in the time that they have to wait—if that is not a reverse phrase—for their pension.

The Government are proposing to accept the existing timetable to 2016 but, instead of continuing it to 2020, to collapse it to 2018, so that what would have happened over four years is happening over two. That is what is producing the problems of bunching, the unfairness, the lottery, the roulette, one sister against another, one neighbour against another and the like.

We have heard the arguments. I tried, as I said, over many hours at the weekend to find a fallback compromise that overcame the problem of bunching without taking us up to 2020, but could not find one. What the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has done, for which she has our warmest congratulations, is none the less concentrated on the post-2020 period and reduces somewhat the period by which pensionable age would rise to 66. That produces the £3 billion of additional savings that the Government are so anxious to secure. It also protects the situation of women. It is smooth, as no woman waits more than one year for every additional year of her age. It is fair to all women. It is a compromise: we get to 66 somewhat earlier than I would like. None the less, it overcomes the basic unfairness of women having random times until which they must wait, according to the random month in which they were born. You cannot make state public policy on the basis of such a lottery. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, addresses that issue, compromises on the later point and makes savings. I hope it will enjoy the support of the whole House.

Like others, I am thrilled by the proposal for a new state single pension of £140. I warmly congratulate the coalition in this House and the Ministers in the other place on it. Had there been eight bullet points, I would have agreed with eight out of eight instead of seven out of seven. I do not want to put this in a way that makes the noble Lord thump the Dispatch Box, but I hope he will today restore the honour of the coalition agreement by making it clear that he can accept this amendment or a version of it. The substance of what was promised in the coalition agreement by both parties forming the Government—that women’s pension age would not rise to 66 until 2020—will then be honoured, either through this amendment or the Government’s promise to come back with another. All sides of this House could then feel well content that they have protected some of the most vulnerable women, who rely solely on their state pension for their income in retirement. We will have treated them honourably, fairly and decently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I support the proposal in the Bill that the threshold should be reviewed in line with the Johnson report. I do so particularly in the light of the reassurance given by the Minister in Committee that there is no proposal from the Government to link the increase in the thresholds to the increase in tax thresholds.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The noble Lord’s honourable friend in the other place, Mr Steve Webb, has made the contrary assertion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

Perhaps the Minister can clarify that, and I am sure he will. I do not know what the noble Baroness is quoting from since we remain committed to raising the tax threshold to £10,000, but we do not want this particular proposal undermined.

I shall come back to a further point that I think is important. The other interesting development is the new basic state pension. I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister in the other place will have had in mind his proposals on the threshold to align with what we are now proposing for the new basic pension. That makes sense. Too low a threshold, as we discussed in Committee, gives rise to considerable administrative problems and the issue of very small pension pots. I am sorry, but they are very small. They will be insignificant in the context of the improvement we will be making in the new basic state pension.

It is all very well for the noble Baroness to shake her head, but it is extremely dishonest to encourage people on low earnings to make contributions to their pensions which actually result in a low rate of return when they come to receive the benefit. Not only will they get that low return until we introduce the new state pension, but if they were in receipt of housing benefit they would actually lose income that they would have achieved through any increased pension.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I—

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I have already allowed one intervention and I should like to move on, since this is a short debate.

Finally, it is important to understand that too low a threshold may well encourage more lower income people to opt out than would a more realistic one. For those reasons, I support the proposal set out in the Bill.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there is clearly a lot of consensus in the House around auto-enrolment, but I am afraid that one of the areas where there is genuine disagreement—there are not many of them—concerns the right earnings triggers for it. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, seek to introduce a lower entry point for automatic enrolment, and we need to look at them with the amendment which seeks to cap annual rises in the automatic enrolment trigger to the higher general level of earnings and prices. Let me take a few moments to explain why it is our view that the threshold we are proposing is right and why reverting to a lower trigger would not be right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, we reached a recommendation on the level by leaning on the Johnson review, which considered a number of factors: earnings dynamics, family characteristics, and the replacement rate which the noble Baroness finds distasteful.

Let me explain why the replacement rate is an important factor. If you are earning a certain level of income through your working life, it does not necessarily make sense to take money out of that to have a better income later. That should be a choice for the individual—that is the theory of replacement rates. When you are looking at asymmetric paternalism and encouraging people to do things that they might not do if they thought about it harder or were equipped to make those assessments, it does not necessarily make sense to create a situation where people find themselves scrimping and saving during their working life to have a slightly better lifestyle when they are older. That might be the right choice, but it should not necessarily be something that we encourage.

If we only consider replacement rates, then the analysis done by the review shows that individuals with earnings in the £10,000 to £15,000-a-year range throughout their working life would, through the combination of the state pension and income-related benefits, receive replacement rates that are often in excess of 100 per cent. If it had been replacement rates alone that guided the setting of the threshold, it would have been set somewhere between £10,000 and £15,000. However, that clearly is not the whole story and the review recognised that. It recognised the importance of dynamic earnings, which mean that some of those who have low earnings today will still benefit from saving as they are likely to go on and earn more in the future, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. However, even that is not straightforward either—when a person’s earnings are low there is a genuine question about whether it is right to encourage them to save at particular times when they may very well have a pressing need to use all their income to meet present living costs.

That led the review team to consider individuals’ family circumstances. These may well mean that a low-earning individual with a higher-earning partner might benefit from saving even when their earnings are low, as it would help provide a decent replacement rate for the family as a whole. In the vast majority of families with both partners working, their total earnings are significantly higher than the earnings of just one individual. Bearing all these complicated and interrelated factors in mind, the aim of the independent review was to set a threshold which maximises pension saving for those for whom saving is valuable, while minimising the number of those brought in for whom it is not. In doing this and making its recommendations, the review team struck a very careful balance.

It is simply not correct to assert that all low earners will benefit from pension saving throughout their working life due to dynamic earnings, receipt of working tax credits or the fact that they live with partners who earn more; nor is it correct to say that all low earners will not benefit from saving. That is why we have the opt-in to allow those who will benefit from saving to choose to do so. Individuals who opt in and have qualifying earnings will of course still benefit from an employer contribution.

No earnings threshold will ensure that automatic enrolment is perfectly targeted, encouraging saving among all those who need to save while excluding all those who should not—unfortunately, the world is not that simple. That is why the review team sought to identify the correct balance between all these factors. The Government accepted its findings, including the adoption of a higher earnings threshold; this was widely welcomed by stakeholders. We believe that the starting point that we have proposed in the Bill on the basis of the review recommendation strikes the right balance between ensuring that we do not encourage persistently low earners or those experiencing a period of low earnings to save, while ensuring that those who clearly will benefit are able to be automatically enrolled.

We all agree that setting an appropriate earnings threshold for auto-enrolment is absolutely central to the success of the reforms. The arguments that I have heard today and during Committee have not persuaded me that there is sufficiently compelling evidence in favour of setting a lower threshold in the Bill when this is compared with what the review team has already considered in detail in reaching its recommendation.

Let me turn to the second element of the issue: the mechanism for revaluing the automatic enrolment thresholds year on year. The aim of the independent review was to set a threshold for automatic enrolment which maximises pension saving for those for whom saving is valuable, while minimising the number of those brought in for whom it is not. In doing this, the review team recommended that the automatic enrolment earnings trigger should be aligned with the tax threshold, currently £7,475. The presumption of the Johnson review was that the trigger would remain aligned with the tax threshold, unless future action by Government resulted in a fundamental change in its purpose or the relationship between them. The Johnson review is clear about its view on the right direction of travel.

The Chancellor has now announced the personal tax threshold for 2012-13 as £8,105. It is logical that this announcement has prompted the question, which my noble friend Lord Stoneham raised, as to whether it is our intention to uprate the automatic enrolment trigger to this figure for live running in 2012. We will want to undertake detailed work over the coming weeks and months to assess the impact of aligning the earnings trigger with that threshold of £8,105. We will look in particular at whether the right balance continues to be struck in terms of who is brought into auto-enrolment using this trigger, especially with regard to low earners and women.

It is appropriate to share with the House the figures that demonstrate the impact of moving up to £8,105. It would remove around 100,000 individuals from automatic enrolment. It is also appropriate to share with the House the fact that the bulk of those are likely to be women—our figure is 79 per cent, a proportion consistent with the impact of the rise to £7,475.

It is too early to say definitively that because £8,105 is the personal tax threshold for next year this will also be the auto-enrolment trigger. However, I can say that our expectation is that we would align with this figure, unless the evidence suggested that this was the wrong thing to do. It is therefore worth my repeating here the commitment I made at Committee that as well as the uprating order being subject to an affirmative debate, we will prepare an impact assessment to accompany the uprating order for each of the first five years up to and until shortly after the 2017 review. This will give us the opportunity to explain in detail to the House how and why we are proposing to uprate the auto-enrolment trigger and inform the affirmative debates that we will have annually.

Times are changing—as we debate these issues, the Chancellor has announced not only a new personal tax threshold but a major review of the operation of tax and national insurance contributions. It is vital therefore that we retain for the long term the flexibility in the uprating power to allow us to consider a number of factors.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name also. It is intended to prevent a fundamental break with the constitutional principle that we have adopted to protect the independence of the judiciary. We are talking about 800 or 900 people in all. The idea that the proposal would have a significant impact on the economy of the country is overstated.

The principle was clearly put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. He said:

“The principle that a serving judge shall not have his terms of service adversely affected without his consent during his term of service is a fundamental principle, part of the rule of law and internationally recognised. It has been followed by Governments in this country, so far as I know, as far back as I can tell”.—[Official Report, 15/2/11; col. 634.]

I agree with that; it is a brilliant statement of the position in relation to the terms and conditions of judges.

The amendment would give effect to principles agreed internationally—including by the United Kingdom—on the independence of judges, best expressed recently in the Bangalore principles, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The principles state:

“A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom”.

It is important to emphasise what the consequence of Clause 24 will be. It will allow the Executive, first, to introduce contributions by a serving judge in respect of his or her pension. That is something that the Executive cannot currently do. Secondly, it allows the Executive in future, without the consent of the relevant judge, to increase the amount of those contributions without reference to any index or to any precedent contractual terms.

I invite noble Lords to consider the Bangalore principles again. Do the proposals give the Executive an inappropriate influence, or the appearance thereof, on what judges do? I say without a shadow of doubt that if, as Lord Chancellor, I had been asked to advise another country on these terms, I would have regarded them as an obvious breach of the principle enunciated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and in the Bangalore principles that the United Kingdom helped to draft, adheres to and promotes throughout the world.

If we are serious about the rule of law, we must preserve the independence of the judiciary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is right to say that if the provision goes forward in this form, it would be the first time—in my experience—we had broken our constitutional principle of not giving the Executive the power, by waving a wand, to say, for example, “We will reduce the judiciary’s terms”. We incorporated in the Senior Courts Act 1981 a provision that prevents the Executive from reducing judges’ pay to reflect in principle the substance of the memorandum that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, read out. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated at Second Reading that the pension changes that he introduced in 1993 could apply only to new judges. There is nothing to prevent the state from extracting significantly reduced terms from new judges, if that is what it wants to do, to show that we are all in this together. However, the one thing that I respectfully ask the Executive not to do is to introduce a power that means that they can hold the sword of Damocles over the judges and reduce their terms and conditions with a click of the fingers if the judges—as a group or individually—do something that they do not like. It would be a significant breach of the constitutional principle to which we have adhered for as long as I can remember and which records show to be the case. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Executive to think very carefully about the damage that they would do to our constitution with this rather mild-looking provision. I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, as a new Member of the House I am somewhat in awe of speaking against a very formidable lawyers’ lobby, although I am married to a solicitor. However, I am delighted to be the only person—it seems—to come to the assistance of my long-standing noble friend Lord McNally. I am reluctant to suggest that the esteemed noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is the shop steward of judges, but I am less reluctant to hold back in respect of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has form in this respect.

Despite the assurances of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that judges are not outside the tax system, noble Lords on this side of the Committee will remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, defending judges being a special case in not having the tax-free limit imposed on their pension funds. The judges’ pension scheme is very generous. The formula is 20 out of 40 contributions: a judge on £170,000 will get a pension of £85,000 after 20 years’ contributions. This is on top of the provision that they will have made earlier in their careers. Most critically, the value of the contribution paid by the state is 32.6 per cent.

At Second Reading, two arguments were used against changing this very generous benefit. The first argument, put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was that we will undermine the excellence of our judicial system. I am sure that nobody wants that. The second argument, which has been emphasised today, is that we will break the spirit of the legislation that says that any salary payable to judges may be increased but never reduced. I would like to deal with both these arguments.

Nobody in this House would want to undermine the excellence of our judiciary. However, by accepting that the change can be applied to new judges, the amendment would abandon that concern as it would defend only sitting judges. The fact is that everyone in the outside world is having their pension schemes adjusted as defined benefit schemes prove too expensive, too beneficial and simply not sustainable. It is not easy for anyone. I accept the argument that judges cannot go back, but many people who face the prospect of losing their defined benefit scheme if they move jobs cannot go back either. There is a strong argument there.

Barristers 20 years ago were dependent on Equitable Life for their pensions, and the current judges’ scheme must seem more attractive to aspiring judges. The man on the Clapham omnibus will find it perverse if judges are not required to make some adjustment to the cost of their increasingly generous relative pension scheme, provided that everyone else in the public sector is doing so and they are doing it because they want to retain their defined benefit scheme. We know how defined benefit schemes have ended, and not only for new entrants in the private sector; many in existing schemes have lost them in mid-career. This was really the whole point of the Hutton report.

Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I have very little to say on this. This is a shadow document in many respects because it is provisional on what we are doing on the current legislation. I think we are broadly supportive of it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his interest in this and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for making that point. To summarise, this sets out the level of contracted-out rebate rates that will apply to employers and employees within defined benefit contracted-out occupational pension schemes from April 2012. As I said earlier, while we have provided rates for defined contribution schemes, that is purely to meet the statutory requirement. As I said before, we are looking at a reduction for contracted-out defined benefit schemes from 5.3 per cent to 4.8 per cent.

As I understand it, the central question that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, put was about why we have picked that one rather than the funding basis or the gilts basis. I shall go a little into the concepts behind the three different approaches. Each approach is designed to provide the employer with a different level of guarantee about it being sufficient to cover the cost of the additional state pension foregone. Taking into account the considerable cost to the taxpayer of providing the reduction in national insurance contributions, the Secretary of State decided that adopting the best estimate approach was the most reasonable. When you think about it, the point about it working half the time is really saying that we have reached the point of indifference between whether you provide a pension scheme or do not do so and rely on the state. There is a rationale there. The other approaches in practice provide a much more powerful bias towards contracting out.

The noble Lord’s supplementary question was about defined benefit schemes. The risk is now essentially being run by the schemes. Different schemes will, of course, have different contributions rates for employers and employees, so there is no simple answer. The core answer is that moving to the point where, on balance, there is a point of indifference between whether you go in or out means that it is a neutral decision.

On the question about public versus private, for public sector schemes there is no extra cost to the employer as the Government are the employer so there is a degree of funds being recycled. Both public and private sector employees will see a slight reduction in take-home pay as a result.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2011

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his eloquence in introducing these orders. If I am not mistaken, the first two will no longer be subject to the affirmative procedure as a result of provisions in the Pensions Bill, so perhaps we must make the most of this occasion. Together with the levy ceiling earning percentage increase order, they set the compensation cap, as we have heard, limiting the amount of compensation payable by the PPF and the levy ceiling which controls the maximum amount of levy the PPF can charge pension schemes. As we heard, the levy ceiling for the year commencing 1 April 2011 is £892 million, which is comfortably above the proposed levy for that year, which the Minister told us is £600 million. In respect of that levy, I do not know whether the Minister is able to give us a split between the risk-based and scheme-based components. Could he take the opportunity to say something about collection rates and how we are doing in terms of collecting what we think is due?

The increase in the general level of earnings for the period 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010 is 2.4 per cent. On the current compensation cap, the maximum level of compensation which is payable before applying the 90 per cent requirement is increased by 0.5 per cent to £33,219. In this case, the uprating is still by earnings but by reference to a different period.

We have no problem with these two orders, although, not surprisingly, they prompt wider questions. First, it is right to reflect on the importance of the PPF and how, alongside the Pensions Regulator, it has played an important role in ensuring some stability in a turbulent period for defined benefit schemes. It has ensured that something like 55,000 individuals already receive, or can expect to receive, a decent income in retirement which, because of the insolvency of their employers, they might otherwise not have achieved. From my experience, it is a highly professional organisation. According to the website, some 212 schemes are in the PPF at the moment and, as at January 2011, almost £236 million has been paid in compensation, with the oldest recipient being 105 and the youngest four.

Things seem to be in a far from steady state, with 10 schemes just transferred into the PPF and 409 schemes and 200,000 members in the assessment stage. Perhaps I can ask the Minister about the time taken for assessment. Clearly in some cases the assessment has not been completed within two years, although in the Pensions Bill we are considering removing the requirement for the assessment period to last for a minimum of 12 months. I accept that there is no inherent inconsistency between those two positions—we support that—but what are the barriers to speeding up the assessment process?

Given the levy ceiling we are discussing, perhaps we could get an update on the PPF’s exposure to the universe of eligible schemes. It would appear that before taking account of the RPI/CPI changes, the number of schemes in deficit and the aggregate deficit has declined over the past year. It is presumed, therefore, that the headway created by the levy ceiling is something with which the Minister is wholly content. In the past, the ability of the PPF to fund the consequences of a big influx of schemes was often called into question. I think that we responded robustly then and I imagine that the Minister is in a position to do at least that this afternoon, given the change in the background to those schemes. Can he say how many compensation payments are currently limited by the cap? I tried to get my mind round this issue—I am not sure that I have completely—but, going forward, what will be the relationship between the level of the cap and what would have been provided for by underlying schemes and the PPF arrangement? If the cap gets uprated by earnings, but compensation amounts going forward are uprated generally by earnings, because that is the nature of defined benefit schemes, and partly by reference to the CPI, is there potentially a divergence of the cap from underlying compensation which thereby would weaken its purpose?

The order concerning the financial assistance scheme puts into effect, as we have heard, the RPI/CPI switch for revaluation, indexation and annual increases in the maximum cap. The Minister will be aware that we have concerns about the switch to CPI, certainly as currently constructed, as an appropriate measure of inflation. Doubtless we will have a substantive debate on that in Committee next week and on subsequent occasions.

I share the Minister’s view that no index is perfect and I was interested in his example about the formula effect and switching. When he referred to it in the Chamber he spoke about moving from one kind of biscuit to another. I am comforted to know that we can go from one jammy dodger to another and we will be okay. It was good to hear about the work going on in the ONS.

As we have heard, FAS, unlike PPF, is funded by government—net of assets taken in, of course—and a reduction in costs can make a contribution to deficit reduction. We could, in principle, support this for a period, but there is a dearth of information about how much is involved and no impact assessment has been provided. Perhaps the Minister can help on that

I am aware that the final settlement for FAS arose from a tortuous process involving, among other things, legal action in the UK and in Europe. I presume that there is nothing in the CPI/RPI switch which could be said to negate that settlement. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. I welcome the proposals dealt with in the Explanatory Notes to consolidate the FAS regulations.

For both FAS and PPF, before entry into the appropriate scheme there would have been a judgment of what an individual could have obtained in the market and whether FAS and PPF would provide a better outcome. This judgment, presumably, would have been made on the basis that FAS and PPF payments would be uprated by RPI. If this is not the case, is there the prospect that individuals will be worse off in retrospect because of the decisions made? What analysis have the Government made of this situation? If it is not to hand, perhaps the Minister will write to me.

Let me make one further point on the PPF levy. It appears that there is to be a new levy framework introduced in 2013. What can the Minister tell the Committee about this and what are the ramifications, if any, for the levy ceiling? I look forward to his responses in due course.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I support these regulations and I have only limited points to make on them. The role of the Pension Protection Fund is very important—all credit to the previous Government for introducing it—and we want to make sure that it is maintained and sustained. Obviously in the current environment the investment levels on the stock market have helped some of these schemes, but can the Minister give the Committee his view on how the economic situation is impinging on companies, particularly those on the borders of insolvency, and the pressures that that is likely to place on the fund over the next couple of years as we move, we hope, towards economic recovery?

I accept that we will be discussing the CPI issue in the coming week but I make the point that none of these indices is perfect; they measure inflation for all consumers on different bases. The Minister will perhaps answer this point more fully next week, but is any further research being done on the CPI to ensure that, as we are now moving towards using it more fully across a number of measures which affect pensioners particularly, we can make the index more representative of pensioners’ expenditure and fairer in the long term? I support the regulations.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, we have had a discussion on some of the main reasons for the move in the threshold. We are understanding of that move. There are a number of reasons for it. The documentation that we have received from a number of organisations questions the rate of return on the savings of people at these levels of earnings.

We have heard mention of the replacement-to-income argument. It is almost certainly true that at these levels of earnings a lot of individuals are less prepared to save. Of course, there is also the burden of administration. I take the noble Lord’s arguments on the threshold being linked to the tax threshold. You would expect us to be committed to raising the tax threshold to £10,000. We want neither a deterrent to doing this nor a deterrent to those who are trying to improve their savings and pensions. I hope therefore that we will have a commitment to look at this each year and that it will not be related necessarily to the raising of the tax threshold, as that would take a lot of people out of the net, which is not what we are trying to do.

I accept that there is an increase in these thresholds, but I want to go back. I apologise for repeating some of the earlier arguments, but I want to make the point that there are a number of things that we need to do—or the Government need to look at—which would be helpful to people who could be vulnerable to these changes. I have mentioned the tax threshold and I hope that we will have a firm commitment on that.

Secondly, we will discuss later the pots of savings and what people will be able to do with them. If they can be brought into NEST, and if we can encourage that process, that would be a most helpful change. It would make the overall change more acceptable.

I was very supportive of the arguments on multiple earnings. It is a big issue that will grow. I am pleased that there was a commitment to 2017. We underestimate the number of women in this position and, even though we may not be able to act now, we could be saying that it is an issue that we will try to address as the new system beds in. We also want to see a degree of commitment to encouraging people to stop opting out. We will address that matter in later amendments. In the context of raising the threshold, these are a number of points that we think are important to make that acceptable. I accept that, ultimately, running through this Bill is a trade-off with the Treasury on all kinds of aspects. We must make sure that we get a good trade-off.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

Perhaps I may briefly invite my noble friend to consider one particular point about the raising of the threshold. There is no need for a commitment at this stage, although it has been implied that it will be considered. Can my noble friend give some thought to, and discuss with his Treasury colleagues, the way in which this might be introduced annually into the national consciousness? I hesitate to dangle another red herring before the Committee in the shape of the national minimum wage, on which I have some prior form. However, if we are beginning to look at the impact on labour markets of a number of items, and some of the misguided or inappropriate claims that are made, or the fact that people say, “I don’t think I can afford that anymore and I want to pull out”, it would be useful to have a national economic snapshot. Although this is strictly about the labour market and within the Minister’s remit by definition because he is legislating on it, it is part of a national economic snapshot. Some people may have noticed today in relation to the national minimum wage a suggestion with which I do not agree—that we should announce it and defer it for 12 months. I merely make the point that probably on the occasion of a Budget it would be useful to have an annual appraisal that was keyed in and could be related by the commentators to tax rates, take-home pay and so forth. It would add to clarity and transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

34: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Transfer to national employment savings trust
In section 16 of the 2008 Act (qualifying schemes) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make regulations to enable transfers of qualifying pension schemes into a national employment savings trust.””

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

This amendment tries to deal with the problem of stranded pension pots. The wording is inadequate and rather than reading,

“transfers of qualifying pension schemes”,

it should read,

“transfer of individual entitlement into the national employment savings trust”.

What the amendment seeks to do is to provide some protection for individuals who have a number of small pension pots. We are aware that NEST is meant to supply a gap in the market for those companies and individuals unable to find pension provision elsewhere. Inevitably, small saving pots will be left in a variety of different schemes which will be a problem, not only for the employees but also for the employers. So in the interest of simplification, every attempt should be made to encourage some consolidation of these pension pots and we would like to see the Secretary of State making regulations to that effect so that these transfers can easily happen. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I am grateful for the generous support that my Amendment 34 has been given and for the very generous response of my noble friend. Two points stood out: first, everybody recognises that facilitating transfers is critical and that it should go beyond NEST; and, secondly, we should look at the principle of early access. In that spirit, I am very pleased to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

40: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Continued saving following employment lasting less than two years
The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide support for continuing savings towards a pension for persons with qualified pension schemes relating to periods of employment of less than 2 years.”

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

In the interests of brevity as time is short, I am very happy to speak to Amendments 40 and 41, which are grouped separately.

Amendment 40 is related to the previous amendment, which concerned small pension pots. We want to ensure that small contributors to pensions over short periods are given due protection. We want to see that individuals do not lose out where they have less than two years’ service, particularly losing the employer’s contribution if withdrawn. We should like to see some ongoing discussion and review of how the position of these savers and pensioners can be protected. However, I accept that the transfer of pension capital is critical to this.

Amendment 41 is a probing amendment. It goes back to the discussion that we had on the past couple of amendments on the whole issue of the costs of pension schemes. We remain concerned that there are still no incentives for employers to be responsible for minimising the costs of the occupational pension schemes in which they are involved. We accept that progress has been made on this but we also accept that the Turner commission originally recommended more action on this point. We would like to make sure that, as the scheme is developed, there is an ongoing commitment to review whether the employer’s contribution should be net of the costs of the schemes. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in relation to Amendment 40, from the earlier response that we got from the Minister in relation to small pots and all the activity that is going on there, I presume that the sort of protection that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, is looking for will be encompassed within that whole exercise. Accordingly, I should be interested to see the outcome of that in due course. Unless I am misunderstanding this, that is where it would be dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that if the research shows that charging levels are creeping up, we have the power under the Pensions Act 2008 to regulate to set a charge cap for qualifying schemes and auto-enrolment schemes. NEST will offer low-cost provision to individuals on low to moderate earnings. As the noble Baroness knows better than anyone else in the world, the annual management charge will be 0.3 per cent. If the contribution charge is taken into account, the overall annual charge is the equivalent of about 0.5 per cent. That will provide a clear benchmark for pension providers.

Given the safeguards that will be in place, and in light of the assurances that I have been able to give on Amendment 40, I urge my noble friends Lord Stoneham and Lord German not to press their amendments.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I shall respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who has performed a service to the Committee in raising this issue. My immediate reaction, not least as a former small employer in the agricultural business employing casual labour and the kinds of people who she rightly described from her Norfolk experience, is that we need to think about how this burden should fall on employers if we are to do it. I shall come in a moment to the other side of the argument, but the Minister will have to tell us how this can be done. He will also need to reassure us that, even if perhaps it should not, it will not in practice act as a disincentive to employers employing these people. That is partly on the administrative side, as well as being the effect with regard to cost uplift. I am not for a moment suggesting that the right thing is for people to go into the irregular economy or that in some way we should find some kind of special deal for them because that is not what the noble Baroness is saying. However, we need to have at least some assurance that it is not going to create problems for employers, that it is manageable and that it will not have malign economic effects.

On the other hand, the noble Baroness is very much on to a point of substance. We have mentioned the word “problem”; I appreciate that that was not the context of what she said, but we should not regard part-time employment as a problem. It is a problem only if, when people would choose to be working for longer hours, it does not escalate into being able to do so, or they have not got the right bag of skills or their remuneration package is too low. We should welcome part-time employment with open arms, along with the flexibility that it brings. That is important and positive, which is why I hope that the Minister can come up with a solution.

I have one more thing to say, which is not meant to be threatening to him or anyone else. My knowledge of employment law has somewhat faded over the years and I am not too good on the equal treatment directive, but, looking at this from the perspective of human rights law, which I know a little more about from recent experience, and equality, if we do not come up with a system that provides the same functional opportunity for people who are working the same number of hours but for a number of employers as compared with those who are working for one employer, we are at some risk of being accused of discrimination. The Minister has to find a workable answer to this.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I support the amendment. It is related to the amendment that we will discuss in a moment about including part-time earnings to qualify for NEST. This is an important issue, and we need the Minister to look at it with a view to recognising the fact that part-time work is growing and is going to grow. There is a lot more out there in the unseen economy than we probably realise, which should be revealed as we move towards the universal credit system. We must therefore address it. As an employer myself, I have seen discrimination happen over the years. People deliberately keep employment below a certain limit so that they can avoid national insurance, and in future they will be doing this on pension contributions as well. This needs to be addressed.

I accept that there is an administration problem, but systems are improving. We should be trying to address this problem in the light of that. Because it is linked to the problem that we will be discussing on a later amendment, I am very sympathetic to this one.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake and I have put our name to this amendment because we support its thrust. Having heard my noble friend, I gather that, perhaps unsurprisingly, she is even more ambitious for this amendment than I took it to be on first reading. It is entirely consistent with the progress that has been made in crediting people into the pension system, in any event, over many years. It is highly relevant—we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and my noble friend Lady Hollis about the growing importance of part-time work in our economy.

When I first read the amendment, I thought that its thrust was to say that when you aggregate employment earnings, if you are above the lower earnings limit, you get credited in. That in itself would not require any payments from the individual or any payments on behalf of any employer. That, at least, would be progress from where we are. There are arrangements that you have to aggregate if you are within associated companies, but that is a separate case.

If it is possible, as my noble friend suggested, perhaps in discussion with the noble Lord, to go further and say that we could aggregate and then work out what the employee and employer contributions would be and how we divvied that up across employers, then that would be a significant improvement and an advance. That is not only because of the state pension arrangements, with credited and contributory benefits in any event, but for the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made about auto-enrolment. If we can aggregate and reach qualifying earnings, particularly if qualifying earnings are going to be pitched at the primary threshold, or at the secondary threshold, which I think is the same thing at the moment, then we can also seek to ensure that people on part-time earnings who would not otherwise qualify in respect of a single employment could, on some basis or another, by aggregation and then divvying up across employers, be entitled to auto-enrolment. At its most basic, lowest level, the ability to aggregate and credit in, for the purposes of the state pension, would be a valuable gain. To be able to go further, as is the ambition of my noble friend, would be a very considerable advance, and if the Minister’s command of technology enables him to deliver on that, we would all be delighted.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, the Bill seeks to build on the previous Government’s work to implement the Turner commission recommendations. I accept that there will be differences on the details of the implementation but I hope that we will maintain cross-party consensus on an issue which has long-term implications. I congratulate the Government and the ministerial team on the excellent consultative papers we have had in preparation for the Bill. I would have expected nothing less of the current Minister for Pensions.

On pensions, three fundamental issues need to be addressed, many of which have been covered in the debate. We cannot ignore the pressures of longevity on funding. There has been a severe decline in private sector provision for pensions overall and an emasculation of the defined benefit schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to it as Hamlet without the prince, but today’s debate cannot also fail to consider the low level of the basic pension which simply supplements the problem of credits acting as a disincentive to saving, an issue to which I will return in a moment.

Turner highlighted the longevity problem. Everyone appreciates—particularly in this House—improving longevity, but it is a disaster for pension planning. There is no alternative but to raise the pension age—the figures speak for themselves; the intergenerational balance and the social contract between generations demands that attention—and resources should be made available to fund pension improvements. The impact on funding, if we do not deal with this issue, will be disastrous across all pension schemes, whether private, public or in the state sector, and will create huge imbalances and pressures.

The only question concerns the exact detail of how we implement the change. Clearly, in the development of this Bill there has been a trade-off with the Treasury and I accept that the swiftness of the change places more disadvantage on women than on men. That is unfortunate, as is the fact that in making these changes we are departing from the previously agreed principles of 15 years’ notice for women and 10 years’ for men. However, the particulars need to be examined as the legislation goes through both Houses. It would be easier if we could spell out what people will get in improved benefits in return for the raising of the pension age in order that this is not seen simply as an exercise in cost-cutting. I shall return to that point in a moment.

On the second issue, the decline of private pension provision, the figures are frightening. They have accelerated even further than Turner predicted and the current private sector coverage for defined pension schemes has declined from 45 per cent to 35 per cent since 1997. We know that defined benefit schemes have been emasculated. There has been a decline in confidence in funded schemes and people have started looking at alternative forms of savings and moving out of pensions. We know that many defined benefit contribution schemes have been oversold and that only later will people discover the poor returns they are to receive, which will be too late. There is a trend among employers to move towards more flexible, lower contribution schemes; they are moving away from defined benefit schemes and following the trend to flexible benefit structures.

Effective pension provision means starting contributions early in life, and automatic enrolment may help. In theory, it will help those most in need of pension improvement and where insurance companies are least interested in making provision. State support is needed and the NEST scheme will help, but it is unlikely to transform matters quickly and it is a myth to think otherwise.

The problem is that the contributions envisaged are actually quite small beer. They may work for those starting contributions early in their working life but they will be of little benefit to the women in their 50s who are going to be most affected by the rise in the pension age. The pots will be small and are hardly likely to provide a very significant pension for those people; and what they do get could well be eaten up by the withdrawal of other benefits.

This therefore takes me to the other prime issue, that of the basic pension. This is where the previous Government gave us least encouragement in these reforms. Raising the basic state pension, reforming the second state pension and reducing benefits’ complexity remain a priority if these changes we are discussing today are to be effective. The earnings link is already a major reform for this Government. It seeks to address the fact that since that link was abolished back in the 1970s, the relative position of the basic pension has declined by about a third, which neither Conservative nor the Labour Governments have addressed. It needs correcting, and it is not simply keeping up with earnings—we now have to try to correct the fact that there has been a fall. I notice that the one area in the coalition agreement dealing with pensions was about deciding what we were going to say and do about addressing this problem, because it is pretty fundamental. It is easier to accept a change in retirement age if there is a direct link to improved pensions and not simply cost savings.

I was directly involved with Steve Webb in working on our party’s proposals for a citizen pension. I hope the Government will use the talents of Steve Webb—one of the foremost pensions experts in this country—to bring in a radical reform of the basic state pension and I hope they will announce the principles for doing this during the course of this legislation. Until we do, we cannot help those in most need of it, who are nearing retirement and are having their working lives extended. Auto-enrolment will be diminished if the effective marginal tax rate associated with reducing credits and benefits undermines the incentives to save and the savings people are making through NEST. If we do not use some of the savings from a higher pension age, we will lose that opportunity forever. Frankly, the Treasury needs to put some petrol in the engine to achieve these reforms.

When it comes to the detail of this Bill, I hope that we will look at the smoothing of the pension age change; but it should be seen in the context of what the Government are going to do on the basic pension, because that is where the trade-off should be. We should make sure that the higher threshold does not discriminate against women doing more than one part-time job and does not encourage employers to increase part-time work in order to avoid making pension contributions. We must work to improve confidence in, and understanding of, private pension schemes, because these proposals assume quite a massive expansion in such schemes. However, we know from history that that expansion can lead to exploitation and mis-selling. We must therefore protect individual consumers and look very closely at the regulation that will do that.

Fourthly, we must improve the relative position of the basic pension to illustrate the direct benefit of raising the pension age. Turner, and now Hutton, recognises that pension reform is required. Whether we like it or not, it will require a combination of higher contributions, a higher pension age and some sharing of risk between stakeholders. This basic, technical Bill will deserve all-party support and should be an important component of delivering the coalition’s plans for pensions, provided that some of the concerns I have raised are dealt with during its passage.