National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2015

Debate between Lord German and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 29th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raises interesting issues in great detail which are always worthy of further examination. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on them. This is a bit of replay from the debate that we have had in the Chamber on the Pension Schemes Bill on an amendment that was simply about the date. It is the date issue that I want to say a few words about. The two arguments evinced to support an earlier date are that it will affect transfers in and that we do not have to worry too much about the European Commission and state aid rules. I am not a lawyer but I know my noble friend is a lawyer and I hope he will be able to rebut that argument.

However, the debate around the European Commission issue relates to the Altmark judgment, which my noble friend has just mentioned, and the second criterion, which is that NEST receives no economic advantage that may favour the recipient undertaking over competing undertakings. It is my understanding that NEST received quite a substantial degree of financial assistance from the Government. If it had not been for that financial assistance, NEST would not have existed. Therefore, the role played by that financial assistance is still important for the task set out, which is yet incomplete. My noble friend mentioned it: 1.2 million of what we call small and micro companies to be auto-enrolled by 2018 is a substantial task. That is one of the tasks for which NEST was set up. Many of the small companies that I have spoken to—this may be anecdotal—have in the past paid no consideration whatever to a pension scheme for their employees. This will be the first time that they are doing it. That is probably the case for nearly the whole lot. If so, the exceptions—the people already enrolled who may want to transfer in—will be an almost invisible statistic. If that is the case, surely the challenge facing NEST is to deal with that huge array of small companies that are going to need more help from NEST in order to undertake the work.

Noble Lords who have talked to NEST will know that their advisers go out and talk to companies, and it is more difficult to talk about these issues to companies with only three or four employees. They do not necessarily have the time to slot it in, and it is much more difficult for smaller companies to work towards a solution. For most of these employers NEST will be the easiest, most competent, most reliable and most appropriate source for their pension scheme. Surely, therefore, that task is one of the tasks set in train by this application to the European Commission. If the reason for providing state aid was to give a financial inducement that would allow it to undertake that job, and that job is not complete and a huge number of companies are still to be engaged with, that, surely, is the challenge that NEST has.

In relation to the European issue and the year, perhaps my noble friend could indicate in his response whether, if it took more than a year to make an application—based on the information provided by the previous Labour Government on the date at which the restrictions on NEST would be lifted—will it be more difficult to do it in advance of that date? Would it be any easier than the more than a year that it has taken so far to get approval for 2017? If it is going to be the same period or longer, we are not talking about this year whatever happens. Even if the Government were to go back right now and start this process all over again, even if they thought that they had a strong case and that no economic advantage was being provided, it would still take until 2016—some way into 2016—and then until the appropriate start date for this. So, even if that were the case, we would probably be talking about, I guess, a gap of 10 or 11 months. It is my understanding, however, from the criteria that my noble friend read out in his opening remarks, that NEST has been given economic advantage, which is continuing, because they are the doing the same job as the one described to the European Commission at the start.

In conclusion, it might be interesting to ask whether the timetable for this activity of NEST in the original submission to the European Commission is roughly the same as the curent activity—in other words whether it was anticipated that this range of companies would be coming in towards this final period of the original application to the European Commission. If the timetable was right then, surely it is right now.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, and the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lady Drake for their contributions.

As the Minister indicated, and the noble Lord, Lord German, reminded us, we had a fairly good canter around this issue on Tuesday, on Report stage of the Pension Schemes Bill. Therefore, noble Lords may be relieved to hear that I will not rehearse all the arguments at the level of detail we went into on that occasion. That said, we cannot allow this order to go through without challenging the core point we made then. I want to look at two things in particular. I would like to push the Minister a bit further as to whether he really believes that there is no problem caused for NEST by the restrictions on transfers remaining until 2017. He suggested that there would not be a problem; he will be unsurprised to know that we disagree. We are concerned that NEST would be unable to sign up employers if any of their employees already have pensions, given that most will not want to use two pension providers or more. Of course, if the company cannot bring everybody in the company into NEST—those already in the workplace pension scheme and those coming in under auto-enrolment—that is a huge deterrent to go in with NEST at all. The DWP’s research suggested that 80% of employers will want one pension provider. Does this not mean inevitably that the ban on transfers in will hold NEST back? The argument against is that DWP research in 2013 that found that 84% of employers with fewer than 250 employees do not provide a workplace pension and would not be affected—a point indicated by the noble Lord, Lord German.

When this order was debated in another place my honourable friend Gregg McClymont pointed out that recording based on employers is not a good proxy for the number of employees who cannot access NEST on that basis. He made a powerful case that the number of employees potentially excluded from going into NEST because of the ban on transfers in is in fact closer to 11.5 million. Will the Minister not accept now that the ban on transfers in is a significant drag on NEST? Also, can the Minister clarify if lifting the ban on transfers will apply to pots accumulated before auto-enrolment or only to auto-enrolment pots?

We are delighted that the Government have continued Labour’s policy of auto-enrolment. We want it to be as successful as possible and it is clear to us that lifting restrictions as rapidly as possible is the best way to achieve that. It would ensure that millions more employees could access NEST, a body we all regard as a success and which is leading the way in driving the cost of pensions down while driving up quality. Why can it not happen now? I am not going to open up a lengthy debate about the degree to which the Altmark criteria will apply. As the Minister will know, in a debate in another place my honourable friend Gregg McClymont said that in practice the Altmark judgment makes clear that once NEST is up and operational its target market no longer counts as state aid, in any case. He is welcome to come back to that but we will not resolve it today.

I want to know more clearly what efforts the Government have made to find out if they could have brought in these restrictions earlier. Whether or not they wish to do it now, they still need to account for their decision to go only in 2017 and not earlier. The Government blame the EU and pray in aid state aid rules and say they are waiting until 2017 because otherwise there would be a legal challenge. Surely the Government have not been told by the European Commission not to lift restrictions until 2017. Rather they asked not to lift them until 2017 and were told they could do so. This was a point I did not feel came out adequately on Report. There is a difference between being told you can do X and claiming that you have been told that you cannot do Y. The Minister indicated that it was the Government’s own judgment that they would be unlikely to get permission for an earlier date. Can the Minister tell the Grand Committee whether the Government went to the European Commission and asked for the restrictions to be lifted before 2017, and if not, why not?

In terms of legal challenge, can the Minister clarify that if the Government amend the Pensions Schemes Bill that is still going before Parliament to lift the restrictions it would not be open to a UK court to challenge that? That is another argument that has been made against doing so. Surely any speculative attempt to mount such a case would be struck out. I would be interested in his reply.

Finally, can the Minister tell the Committee when he responds to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, whether the Government have addressed these points in the past? She raised a very interesting point about the position of employers with closed schemes or, of course, ex-employees. Is that something the Government have addressed in their deliberations or reviews and what evidence do they have on that point? I will be interested to hear his response to the noble Baroness’s questions, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord German and me.

[Lord German]

My Lords, it was remiss of me not to declare an interest in this matter in that my wife is a pension saver with NEST.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I am not sure it is relevant but, in case it is, I remind the Grand Committee of my interest as the senior independent director of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

State Pension Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord German and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will address my remarks, if I may, to Part 4 of the regulations—that is, Regulation 13. As I understand it, the regulations effectively replace what is called the home responsibility protection with a 10-year minimum qualifying period for a UK state pension. Prior to 2010, we had in the UK both the HRP and a 10-year minimum qualifying period. From 2010 until now, we had the HRP only. That is now being replaced by the 10-year minimum qualifying period, which was the position before 2010.

I refer to the Explanatory Memorandum and, in particular, paragraph 7.21, which, without the benefit of an impact assessment, is one of the major ways of discovering how many people will be affected by the shift that is announced in the regulations. This is what worries me more than anything else. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government look at the difference between a seven-year and a 10-year minimum qualifying period. The number of affected individuals in the United Kingdom who reach retirement age between 2016 and 2020 is approximately 3,000—the figure for the seven-year qualifying period is 6,000 to 10,000, while that for the 10-year period is 9,000 to 12,000, so the average difference between the two is 2,500 to 3,000 people. However, the following sentence says:

“In comparison, we estimate that 18 to 23 per cent (6,000 to 10,000 people) of the total number of individuals living overseas reaching state pension age in the same period will not qualify for a state pension because of the 10 year MQP”.

Then there is an estimate of that saving the Exchequer £650 million by 2040. This figure, I presume, relates mainly to those people living in other countries who have made a contribution to a UK state pension through their national insurance contributions, but who have not reached 10 years of qualifying and do not live either in the EEA or in a country that has a bilateral arrangement with the UK—for example, contributors to a UK pension who live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and other places. That is presumably why this figure is so high.

In that four-year period from 2016 to 2020, somewhere between 18% and 23% of all those pensioners who are expecting to receive a UK state pension are now not going to receive one. I would be grateful if my noble friend could provide—in writing if he does not, as I suspect, have the information to hand—a breakdown of who will be affected, where those people are affected and what the average rate of payment into a UK state pension has been in terms of minimum qualifying periods. If in fact there is a greater number between seven and 10 years, would that figure of 18% to 23% of people affected fall dramatically, if there were a seven-year qualifying period? It would be interesting to know what the rates of contribution had been for those people.

There is of course a second issue, relating to those who live within one of the countries that have a bilateral arrangement with the United Kingdom. I presume that those who live in an EEA country would in fact be entitled, because of contributions made through that European Economic Area member state, to a pension of some sort from the country where those contributions had been made. I want to ask my noble friend whether that is correct. Has an assessment been made of what that pension would be in each of the European Economic Area countries? More specifically, for those countries where there is a bilateral arrangement—my noble friend mentioned Israel and the United States of America—would the contributions which would enable people to get their pensions if they did not reach the 10-year minimum qualifying period, providing they had made sufficient contributions in those countries, for example, entitle them also to some form of pension ability in those countries, given that we have a mixed and bilateral system? I wonder whether my noble friend would agree with me that now is perhaps the time to reconsider the arrangements that we have with other member states in the European Economic Area and with other countries, particularly those of the Commonwealth, where we perhaps need to revisit whether we have a consistent, safe and sane system.

My noble friend also referred to the assistance that will be given to people to understand the new changes. It is not in the regulations, obviously, but paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to guidance. Could my noble friend tell me whether any guidance is given to those people in the country who are now seeking, part-way through their working life, to emigrate to Canada or Australia, for example, that their state pension rights will be affected by these regulations, and perhaps much more dramatically than they would have been in previous years? I understand that this is a very narrow area to consider, so I would be happy, if necessary, to have a detailed reply in writing, but I would like to see the breakdown of how this affects people who have been contributing to a UK pension in countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful explanation of the regulations and the noble Lord, Lord German, for his contribution, too. Generally speaking, the regulations seem to broadly reflect the intention of the legislation, so I shall concentrate on only two or three points on which I would like some clarification, which mostly have already been raised by the Minister—although I confess that I was not planning on talking about prisoners, or his idea of people being “at large”. I completely agree that people should not be rewarded for this, but the Government’s argument for not giving them a pension is that the state is taking care of their bed and board—which, presumably, the state is not doing if they have absconded. However, I shall let him off on that point for now.

Regulation 10 sets the accrual rate for increments when someone defers claiming their state pension. The rate has now been set at 5.8% per year, which is slightly above what we were told in Committee. Have the Government had time to reflect further since the Bill became an Act about the reasons behind the decision to stop people being able to take a lump sum when they defer, instead of an enhanced ongoing pension? During the passage of the Bill through this House, my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham challenged the Government and said that doing this was removing the only opportunity for some future pensioners, particularly those of lesser means, to acquire a lump sum to use in retirement, which might be the last opportunity to fix some particular problem with the house or buy a car. She pushed the Government on that.

I understand—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that of the 1.2 million who defer their pensions, only 63,000 take the lump sum, which on average is worth about £14,000. Could the Minister remind us of the reasoning for this? I seem to recall at the time the Minister for Pensions Steve Webb said it was to “simplify the system”, but I do not think it is very hard to understand that you can have a lump sum or a higher weekly amount. So I do not find that reason hugely compelling. Furthermore, government policy on pensions has evolved a bit in recent times, and the idea that people who have been saving for their retirement should be allowed to take a lump sum rather than a weekly pension has become rather flavour of the month. For example, it is there in the Taxation of Pensions Act, whereby people who would have had to spend their retirement savings on an annuity in future may take it out and spend it on a Lamborghini—I believe that is the phrase—should they be so moved. Has the Minister had any second thoughts on that, in the light of changing government pension policy?

Secondly, Regulation 13 was raised by the noble Lord, Lord German. I shall not repeat all the questions that he asked, some of which I would have asked myself, but I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s answer. I am interested in the rationale—that the reason for doing this now is because of the profile of the people who would be affected not being the people one would have expected when the legislation was going through. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that only 2% to 3% of the people affected would be living in Great Britain, versus 18% to 23% overseas, but the absolute numbers are broadly comparable. We are talking 9,000 to 12,000 in Great Britain and 6,000 to 10,000 overseas. The memorandum says:

“Current projections by the Department indicate that in the medium and long term, abolition of the de minimis condition would have disproportionately benefitted people living outside the UK”.

What is expected to be the short-term impact?

As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, the changes made by the last Labour Government in the Pensions Act 2007 are the context for this. It meant that people who reached state pension age on or after 6 April 2010 needed only 30 qualifying years to qualify for a full basic state pension—and, of course, the HRP, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said. With fewer than 30 years, they qualify for a BSP of one-30th of the full rate for each complete qualifying year that they have built up. That means that somebody reaching state pension age from 6 April 2010 who would not be entitled to any BSP would only be somebody who had built up not even one qualifying year. So it is quite a significant difference. The Labour Government estimated that to mean that, by 2025, over 90% of people reaching state pension age would be entitled to a full BSP. It is quite a big difference from that to someone with, say, nine qualifying years, who as I understand it would not receive anything at all. Labour tried in various ways during the passage of the Bill to soften the transitioning, which would have dealt with some of the issues, but the Government rejected it. Have the Government had any further thoughts on that?

On another point, that is only one of many reasons why someone might not find themselves entitled to a full new state pension, which has become a bit of an issue of late. I understand the desire for simplicity, but in trying to advocate for the single-tier pension, there is a danger that the Government have led many people to believe that they will all qualify for the new state pension, when, in fact, we now know—from freedom of information papers released after Christmas—that 55% of people will not be on the new flat-rate state pension. Obviously, this is partly down to the way the Government have presented this. In an unusual bout of politicians declaring their responsibility, I gather that the Pensions Minister Steve Webb told the Daily Telegraph:

“I think I may have been guilty of oversimplifying the new flat rate state pension”.

Could the Minister tell the Committee, given that that misapprehension is out there, for whatever reason, what steps the Government are taking to correct it? What kind of information campaign is going on to make sure that people who are approaching retirement within the next 10 years will have a better understanding of what they can reasonably expect to get?

Housing Benefit (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord German and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I am in the unusual position of saying that I am not sure whether I agree with a single word that the Minister has just said. It was in fact the second most disappointing speech of the day.

The Minister has put forward three broad arguments. First, that it does not matter how many people are affected. But it matters to me, it matters to them and it matters to the local authorities, which have to deal with the mess that the Government have created.

Secondly, there is the question of savings. I noticed that the Minister failed to answer my question on what the net savings would be. Clearly, these savings are vanishing before us like a will o’ the wisp. The Minister also failed to explain how the savings remain the same, despite the Government having had to increase the money allocated for discretionary housing payments from £20 million to £190 million. The Government seem determined to ignore the costs and problems created for councils and other housing providers. If there is any doubt about that, let us remember that the National Audit Office said that the Government’s costings do not take account of,

“the full scale of potential impacts”,

and do not include the additional costs faced by local authorities. We have heard so much about those costs today from my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.

There is then the question of overcrowding. As my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out, this argument is frankly specious. There are not enough smaller homes to move into, a point underscored by my noble friend Lord Beecham, and where they are they are in the wrong places. They are not in the places where people are being asked to move. People have not moved because there is nowhere to move to. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Hollis put an amendment to this House which said that the bedroom tax should not apply if someone could not be offered somewhere else to move to. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had the courage to vote for that amendment at the time and I commend him for his consistency. Other noble Lords did not and the government Benches voted it down. Let us not therefore pretend that what the Government are really worried about is overcrowded houses. They had every opportunity to correct that and they failed it.

We have heard so many powerful speeches today about the misery and desperation caused by this policy. If the noble Lord, Lord Freud, really believes that this policy is a success, I would hate to see what his failures look like. If he feels that he is getting the right behavioural effects, what are they? Are they in the family described by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who are not eating? Are they the families who are going without or giving up bedrooms needed by carers or disabled people? No: the handful of people who have moved are doing so out of desperation, not because they were responding to a behavioural stimulus.

I found the speech from the noble Lord, Lord German, very disappointing. I was delighted to read the reports of Tim Farron saying that the Liberal Democrats were going to withdraw their support for the bedroom tax.

[Lord German]

When I asked my honourable friend in the other House whether that is what he had said, he said that he had not. I have his speech with me and I can also tell the noble Baroness that my honourable friend was interviewed by ITV on this matter but that ITV news decided not to broadcast his comments because they did not substantiate the allegations that the noble Baroness is now making, nor did they substantiate what the Guardian had said. Both of those sources are incorrect; the source is here in front of me and I invite my noble friends to listen to it.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that clarification. I take from it that the Liberal Democrats are in fact supportive of the bedroom tax and I thank the noble Lord for making that clear. If I have got that wrong again, the noble Lord has a very clear way of demonstrating it. They can join us in the Content Lobby today and the nation will judge them by that. If enough noble Lords were willing to come behind us today to stand up and say that this House does not believe that this is a good policy, or that this cruel, vicious, unfair and inefficient tax should be allowed to stay, a start would be to regret these regulations today. I urge noble Lords to do that and if enough people do, maybe the Government will think again. Maybe this House could start a process that would lead to the bedroom tax being repealed in this Parliament. However, if the Liberal Democrats will not do that and the Minister will not relent, let the country be in no doubt: the Labour Government will repeal this when they come to office. In the mean time, let us send a message today. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord German and Baroness Sherlock

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

I shall say a few words about the two issues raised by this amendment. They are important issues, albeit for a small number of beneficiaries, although that number will increase over time, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said. It strikes me that because of the loss of one part of pension credit, the part that gives this passported benefit for cold weather payments, the Government presumably have to have something in place to ensure that people are in receipt of that payment. Will my noble friend reassure the House that it is not the intention that eligibility for cold weather payments will be reduced so that only a few will be able to receive them for the very important purpose for which they are drawn? Can he tell us about the fuel poverty strategy which I understand the Government are consulting on and whether these issues are rightfully the sorts of issues which could be debated and discussed during the consultation? If that is the case, there is clearly a route forward, but I seek reassurance from my noble friend that both these schemes are intended to continue and that their purpose and scope will not be diminished.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 1 which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. My noble friend has been like a terrier chasing the Minister on the subject of passported benefits and payments. The Minister may have thought he had shaken him off as he left the Moses Room at the end of the Committee stage, but I am sure he knew better. Indeed, it is to the Minister’s credit that he was content to return to this subject at Third Reading, knowing that he would face the onslaught of yet more gentle but expert and determined questioning from my noble friend Lord McKenzie.

I express my appreciation to the Minister for allowing his officials to brief us and to his officials for giving us for the first time a detailed list of all the benefits that are being passported from pension credit. However, that left some clear question marks about the future strategy for passported benefits. If the Minister is in a position to tell us where the Government’s forward plans are taking them, not just on these two, but on any of the other benefits that are not clearly passported from pension credit, I think the House would appreciate that.

My noble friend has set out the case characteristically clearly, and I need add little to it, but the House and the country will want to hear the Minister answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord German. We want to be satisfied that people will not lose out and that there is an alternative plan for arrangements to replace the passporting of cold weather payments and access to the warm home discount scheme.

The point made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie about the role of rising energy prices in the cost of living crisis is visible to all noble Lords at the moment. This is a particular issue in relation to these two benefits in parts of the country that obviously suffer from lower temperatures. I should perhaps declare an interest as a resident of Durham where, despite the fact that we have a world heritage site and much to commend us, with lower rainfall on average, even I have to confess that our temperatures are on average perhaps a whisker below those on the tropical Riviera of Cornwall. On the other hand, this will not affect me until I reach state pension age and that is receding ahead of me at some rate, so perhaps no declaration of interest is needed.

The Government have indicated that they propose to introduce the new single-tier pension above the current level of the guarantee credit in pension credit. But it is clear that that could come in at just a shade above. If Ministers want to carry on asserting that reducing means-testing is an important part of these pension reforms, then they have to have a strategy on passporting—otherwise they will end up with the kind of cliff-edges which anyone who worries about means-testing will know can really be a trap for the unwary.

Maybe the Government have had the opportunity since Report stage to think through how this will be taken forward and can give the House the kind of assurances that have been sought by both noble Lords who have spoken. If they have not, which I will understand, I very much hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. Parliament has a right to know what will happen to these payments, and by the time we get regulations it will be too late. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on having spotted the error before Royal Assent and the Opposition have no problem with the amendment.

I, too, would like to take this opportunity to say a few words of thanks to my colleagues for all their wisdom and support. I thank especially my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton for doing so much work on this Bill and for being such a constant source of support. I would also very much like to thank the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill—for his openness and his willingness to engage with appeals from all parties and to share the information and knowledge of his department. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for adopting a similar style and for his engagement. I thank the officials, too, for their helpfulness and their willingness to answer so many questions—in my case, often very stupid ones, which they have answered with graciousness and lots of information. We have all very much appreciated that.

The Bill has benefited from scrutiny in this House and leaves this place a better Bill than when it arrived, as is so often the case. It is the first Bill I have taken all the way through from the Front Bench and I have learnt a great deal from noble Lords on all sides. I have been grateful for the kindness and indulgence of the House as I have learnt on the job—a sort of apprenticeship, as one might have it. As the Minister said, the Bill has now benefited not only from the one victory that the House scored on mini-jobs—we hope very much that the other end will see the wisdom of that but, if not, we stand by our beds awaiting its return should that prove necessary—but from concessions around things such as service wives, auto-enrolment and categories of employer, and in other ways as we have gone through it. I pass my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed at any point in the process. We all share a common objective of getting people in Britain saving for their retirement and I hope this Bill will help contribute to that objective.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I add thanks from these Benches to my noble friend and to the staff who have been behind all the detailed benefits we have received from having such a deep level of understanding and knowledge of the Bill throughout. I want to mention two particular things. One is the recognition during the Bill’s passage through this House that my noble friend will look very carefully at the needs of children who are in distress. I look forward to seeing that coming forward again in future months as we come to a response to whatever my noble friend is able to deduce from that investigation.

The second piece of thanks that I have to give to my noble friend is for his ability to bring Her Majesty’s Treasury to a meeting with officials of the DWP. That way, there was a coalition not only of Members of your Lordships’ House but of my noble friend’s staff. That ensured that we got a recognition that where pensions in the public sector would be affected by some of the matters in the Bill, they would put an architecture in place for whenever some new money might become available.

While using this opportunity to put this on the record, I want to thank my noble friend for all the support that he has given. The quantity of literature and number of pages that we have received is something that we will weigh with great pleasure during the years to come, because of course the measures which this House is taking in this Bill will affect the population of this country for many generations in the future. It has been very significant to see the Bill pass through the House.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord German and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I have a couple of brief points to add. One is addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. Perhaps he would like to reflect on the fact that what the Minister is doing in this Bill is taking two completely separate systems of support, one for those in work and one for those out of work, and creating a single seamless new product. However, for that to work, it must meet the needs of both sets of people. I think that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was making just now—that the Minister may want to effect a culture change for those who are in work, or whom he would like to be in work, but universal credit is also available to support many people who are not required to work, who may never be required to work and who may never be capable of working. Why should they be forced to go through a culture change to no end? Is there really a strong case and can the Minister explain it to us?

Secondly, I want to pick up on the very good point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that it takes a lot of time, energy and skill to manage on a very small amount of money. It also takes a lot of intelligence and aptitude to be able to budget well on that. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on what may seem to be simply a matter of timing. If one has plenty of money it is much easier; it is also easier if one has a pot of working capital, so if something goes wrong one month the consequences are simply that you dip into your savings. I spent some years working with single parents and most of them had almost no cushion at all, so if they got it wrong they had nothing to fall back on. For many poor people, their friends are also poor, their families are poor; they do not have the kind of networks where you simply go and borrow from somebody else or you to go the bank and ask it to lend the money, because it will not. The consequences for those families of getting that budgeting wrong can be very severe. Given what is happening in other areas to the Social Fund and the other kinds of support, we really do not want to be driving people into the arms of moneylenders.

Finally, within that group there are some people who, because of their particular circumstances, have very strong reasons why they need to be paid regularly. It is a point I made in Committee but I think it bears repeating here. I have worked with families where, for example, the husband had a problem with drugs or alcohol and went off on a bender and spent the week’s wages; the mother would have to find a way of feeding the children until the next benefit cheque arrived. If that happens in one week, it is difficult; if it is happening in two weeks, it is difficult; but as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will appreciate, if it is not a matter of “life after next Tuesday” but “life for the three weeks that follow next Tuesday until the end of the month”, how does she manage?

The question the Minister has to answer is not whether he would like to do this; I have no doubt that he would. Rather, it is: is the price that will be paid by some of the poorest people really worth the culture change he wants to achieve?

[Lord German]

My Lords, I am always staggered to find out more about my noble friend Lord Kirkwood. In Committee we learnt what he did in the bath, and now we have learnt that he goes around arresting bank accounts. We have been having some very interesting debates. However, I am slightly less sanguine about this issue than he is, perhaps largely because many of your Lordships have said that we have to look at people for what they can do and what their ambitions are. People, and groups of people, are not all the same. It strikes me that this is not about going in one direction or another, and that we are treating people as having exactly the same ability to manage their own money.

I also heard in Committee the Minister’s ambitions for looking at other methods of dealing with payments. I looked back over the last four to five years of the growth in the Post Office card account and in basic bank accounts, which of course is where you would expect to find the sorts of people who make and deal with money in this manner. And there has been growth; in fact, 12 per cent of the whole population—according to the appropriate survey done by the DWP, which is published on their website—is using one of those two bank accounts.

It also struck me that the price that we are paying for the Post Office card account is frighteningly expensive for what we get as a country. It is a bank of this country, and a bank, JP Morgan, underwrites it, and it charges the state for managing these Post Office card accounts. I believe that we pay something like £50 each a year—£142 million per annum—have those accounts run for us. It strikes me that we perhaps need a presumption to ensure that we put things of this nature in place by giving people the appropriate support, but at the same time ensuring assistance for those who cannot. The language that I have heard many Lordships use, which seems to come from the documents, is the “chaotic family syndrome”, where people just cannot manage and need to have some different form of assistance. That is why I started by saying that we should not treat everyone in the same way.

The Post Office card account is a bank account. It does not come with what we might normally expect a bank account to have, but why not, when we are paying so much money for it? Why are people not able to make payments from it for their utilities and gain benefits and savings? I guess that most noble Lords do this because of the way in which they pay for their heating, electricity and gas at the present time. Surely we should be offering that opportunity and using that ability to help people in that manner. We also should not think that people should not be able to separate out their money in the way in which they pay it to themselves. However, in order to do that you have to have appropriate levels of support.

My question to the Minister is: if you are pursuing the idea of developing the facilities which a large number of people currently use for payment, will you also be able to offer advice and support to assist those people who might wish to avail themselves of an enhanced system that allows them to pay their utility bills monthly by a straight payment or direct debit, thus allowing them to get the benefits of reduced charges?

I noticed that the Cabinet Office issued a press release for those who live in England, which says that £16.8 million of support will be given for free debt advice in this country. Does the Minister regard that as being some of the funding that he intends to use for the support that might go with these enhanced accounts?

I know that over the years there has been considerable discussion about the use of the Post Office card account, primarily, of course, in the context of trying to support the local post office in each of our communities. Surely, however, if we were able to do more with it and to provide that advice, perhaps even at the Post Office, it might even be better to do that with the funding that might be available.

There is the problem that many people, or some people, will not be able to manage and will need alternative forms of assistance and advice. My noble friend Lord Boswell was saying that we ought to move in one direction, but it strikes me that we must be wary and understand that there are people who will not be able to manage. We must be able to assist those people properly.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord German and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 10th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I hesitate to lower the tone after that marvellous exposition by St Sebastian—by the noble Lord. Perhaps the Minister will answer some questions for me. I have been reading the very large and very helpful response to the consultation exercise that the department kindly provided. I wonder whether he would help me with the sums. His Treasury and City background might help me to understand this. I am grateful for the briefing from Family Action and I take that briefing very seriously. I noticed that it had been giving out grants to people in need since 1869—even longer than the Social Fund—so it has some knowledge whereof it speaks. When organisations like that warn that things are about to get very bad, we need to listen, because they know what they are talking about.

Perhaps the Minister could help me to understand. I gather that in terms of crisis loans, during 2010-11, £152.9 million will be disbursed, and it is intended that from 2013-14 that will be replaced by the amount of £36 million, which will be transferred to local authorities. I am assuming that cannot literally be a cut of £160 million, or 76 per cent. I presume that there is a gross and net issue here. Perhaps he would help me to understand the effect of that transition.

Secondly, will the Minister tell us what work the department has done in estimating the impact of this recession, or other recessions, on demand going forward? Perhaps he could help us by looking at what happened previously. I note that the briefing from the Government in response to the consultation denies that the recession or youth unemployment had any part to play in the increased demand, although the fact that it started in 2008-09 would seem to imply a coincidence because that was around the same time as GDP began to go downwards. I wonder whether he could help us to understand that as well.

Thirdly, perhaps he could help me to understand how the new system will respond to changes? For example, how flexible can it be to changes in the profile of need in a particular local authority area? For example, if another of his policies such as the benefit cap were to have the unfortunate consequence of causing significant numbers of poor people to move from one area to another—I am not suggesting that it will, this is just for the sake of argument—how would that be affected by a local authority in that circumstance, or a circumstance like that?

I have one final question. Does he have any concerns about the consequences of what seems to me to be a move between what is currently annually managed expenditure to something that effectively becomes—albeit indirectly—a form of DEL? The only reason I ask is because one reason why something like this is part of the social security system is because it responds—and is managed and funded by central government to respond—to the changing profile of the labour market and the people in need because of changes in circumstances. How will government finances handle that in future?

[Lord German]

My Lords, I shall add some further questions about process. I shall not to go over the same ground that we have just covered, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for the historical background. This morning I started reading a report by her colleague, the Assembly Member for Cardiff West, on this very issue and on Labour's history in it in the past few years. In his report on this issue, the pride of place in the new Labour era goes directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with a major quote about the need for reform of the system. He then traces the whole history of the Labour Party's involvement and engagement with the Social Fund during the previous Government, and ends with a quote from the last document which we have, the DWP document of March 2010, which says that,

“the Social Fund has remained largely unchanged in the two decades since its introduction”,

that the existing scheme was “passive”, doing,

“little to help people build up personal financial management skills”,

and that it was “short-term”, “complex”, and presented a series of “delivery challenges” if the system were to,

“provide better value for money for the tax payer”.

I have no idea whether that is an accurate recording but he took his starting point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and his end point is that there is a problem which has not been dealt with, so reform is obviously essential.

The second piece of quite interesting information which I took from this document is on the report of the Calman commission. I do not want to appear like a cracked record here but I shall refer to an amendment in a moment. It is not clear to me which country we are talking about and whether “national” means England. However, one issue considered by the Calman commission, which was of course set up by the three parties represented around the centre of this Committee, was to recommend to the Government that the discretionary elements of the Social Fund should be devolved. The previous Government, in their response, said “We'll think about it”. I presume that the thinking has now moved on, which is why this issue may well be before us in terms of devolution. In a moment, I want to trace what I think is going to happen in Scotland and Wales because, although there is not yet a clear picture, there is a sense of direction in Scotland, and one beginning to emerge in Wales, as to what will happen.

First, Calman treated this as not being part of the major social security network. He regarded it as a different animal. Another quote which I liked, because I had the greatest respect for this Labour politician, is when the late Donald Dewar said that the Social Fund was,

“flawed in concept and arbitrary in its impact”.

Reform was therefore essential, but that essential reform is still on the table. What is likely to happen in Scotland is that its Government, as I thought, are likely to add an element of their own funding to this sort of money and to create their own scheme, so that there will be a different scheme in Scotland, administered by I do not know whom—possibly by the third sector—and managed on a whole-Scotland basis. The argument that is developing in Wales is very similar: there will be a possibility of an all-Wales scheme, delivered by and responsible to the National Assembly for Wales.

In that context, we therefore have to be clear that most of the questions and discussion which we have had so far are about what happens in England. I respect that and it is very important, because that is probably where there is now the greatest area of concern about how it will all work. I am sure that in Amendment 86ZZZEB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) refer to England, and that the word “national” in “uniform national appeals process” in new subsection (5A)(c) again refers to England.

We have this problem because we refer to nations. We have a National Assembly for Wales. That means that Wales is a nation. I am not certain how we refer to England at the moment. Presumably that is what the amendment needs. There has to be concern about how this will be delivered. It is appropriate to leave the structure and nature of the business to Governments in Scotland and Wales for them to shape in a way that is appropriate to them because they will have the legislative and financial competence. Of course, this Parliament will have no competence in that matter because the formula will be moved on through a structure that will eventually end up in the Barnett formula. It is important perhaps to look at models that we can share across the United Kingdom. The one for England is not yet absolutely clear.

Before I leave the issue of Scotland and Wales, I ask the Minister whether there has been any mention in Scotland and Wales of the use of the legislative consent motion. That is the device by which a devolved Administration can either ask for or accept permission to legislate, or give the permission to this Parliament. It works in both directions. I wonder whether that has happened. There is still some concern about the nature of what the Administrations want to do.

I will not repeat the arguments on the ring-fencing issue, but in England it is also the case that where you have accountability for funds that emanate from Parliament, there must be some accountability to Parliament. I will start by asking the Minister about the issue of the accounting officer. If discretionary funds are moved in the way that is described, am I right in believing that the accounting officer for those funds will be the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions? We should remember that by definition this is the person whom Parliament may call to account for the stewardship of the resources within their control. How on earth will the Permanent Secretary of the DWP account for money that has been spent without any ring-fencing or contract of any sort by local authorities throughout England? I would be grateful for an answer to that.

The Bill has no lines of accountability across departments. I would like to know what the line of accountability across departments is. If the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government were the accounting officer, would they be the accounting officer for some parts of the fund, with the DWP Permanent Secretary having responsibility for others? What are the lines of accountability across departments? Or will accountability be split between various departments? In other words, who should Parliament call to account for these moneys.

The second issue is about reporting back. We have heard about ring-fencing going in one direction. If there is to be an accounting officer and Parliament is to call them to account for those moneys, what will be the reporting back mechanism from local authorities in England to the accounting officer in whichever department it is? If that is not described, clearly we will lose the sense of being able to account for public money. I certainly worry about that.

I have asked a range of questions that need to be answered. I start from the premise that I have worked from this wonderful document. I will give a reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on this matter. It seems to me that we started with a problem many years ago and ended up with a problem that is still there. We need to find an answer but in so doing we need to ensure that we have covered all the possible corners that may be preventing us getting to the most appropriate solution.