Debates between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Haskel during the 2015-2017 Parliament

Tax Credits: Concentrix

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Haskel
Wednesday 14th September 2016

(8 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome and I miss sitting next to her in this House. The WFTC is a complex system and in the Statement and response that my honourable friend gave in the other place, she referred to the complexity. As I said in response to an earlier question, all these cases will over a period of time—some six or seven years—be migrating to universal credits. We hope to learn from the complexity to which my noble friend referred in devising a better system than the one we have.

Lord Haskel Portrait Lord Haskel (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister spoke of 150 staff being taken on to do this work. Will new staff be taken on or will existing HMRC staff be stretched still further?

Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham
- Hansard - -

The answer is the latter but I would not use precisely those words. I would say that HMRC may have to reorder its priorities to cope with this additional responsibility.

Pension Protection Fund

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Haskel
Tuesday 13th September 2016

(8 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of proper pension protection and are confident that the Pension Protection Fund will be able to make compensation payments now and in future. It has more than £23 billion worth of assets under management and a reserve of more than £4 billion. It is 116% funded; that is, it has 16% more money than it estimates it needs. That puts it in a strong position to face the future.

Lord Haskel Portrait Lord Haskel (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for his first Question. Bearing in mind the numbers he gave us, and also that the current BHS episode affects 20,000 people, and the recent warning from PwC that our defined pension schemes have a total deficit of £710 billion, are the Government satisfied that the current regulation is good enough to prevent poorly run schemes having to be bailed out by well-run schemes, which is the whole purpose of the protection fund?

Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome. I think my career is on a downward spiral rather than an upward one. On British Home Stores, that pension scheme is now in the assessment period so far as the PPF is concerned. It is confident that, should BHS fall into the PPF, it has the resources to meet those obligations. On the very substantial figure that the noble Lord mentioned, that is a snapshot of all the liabilities of the defined benefit pension schemes were they all to have to buy annuities at the present moment. Of course, that is a volatile figure. When interest rates go down, the deficit goes up; should interest rates go up, the deficit would go down and in many cases disappear. One must look at this in the long term, with the volatility of the economic cycle taken into account. A pension fund is, after all, a long-term investment.