Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived: EUC Report

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Boswell of Aynho

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, the intention is that after today’s debate a Motion will be moved in the Chamber on Monday inviting the House to agree that a formal reasoned opinion should be issued.

Our report concerns a proposal to create a European Union fund to provide aid to deprived people, which was examined by our Sub-Committee on the Internal Market, Infrastructure and Employment, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, whom I am delighted to see in her place today. Before I explain our thinking on this proposal, I will briefly explain the background because the committee has considered earlier versions of the policy twice before.

The European Union’s food distribution programme began as far back as 1987 as a way to make use of agricultural surpluses. As the report explains, in both 2010 and 2011 the committee considered proposals relating to the programme to distribute food products. On both occasions the committee suggested that the House should issue a reasoned opinion under the Lisbon treaty because the proposal was not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity—in other words, that this was something that was better done at member state or regional level—and that no compelling argument had been put forward that the European Union was better placed than member states to ensure a food supply to its most deprived citizens. Our view was not shared by a sufficient number of other national parliaments so no so-called “yellow cards” were triggered, which would have inhibited the scheme that the Commission had put forward in those years, and the current scheme was extended to the end of 2013.

The proposal before us today is to create a new “Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived” to operate from 2014 to 2020 in order to address food deprivation, homelessness and the material deprivation of children. The proposed fund would support and co-finance national schemes to provide non-financial assistance to the most deprived persons. I make it clear that we share the Commission’s concerns about EU citizens suffering from deprivation, and that we recognise the very serious impact of the economic crisis. Our report, though, is about whether the European Commission’s proposal is the right way to respond to these important issues.

The Commission has provided little by way of justification that its proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. Our committee had to derive some indication of the Commission’s reasoning by looking at the accompanying impact assessment, which argues that European-level action is necessary because of,

“the level and nature of poverty and social exclusion in the Union, further aggravated by the economic crisis, and uncertainty about the ability of all member States to sustain social expenditure and investment at levels sufficient to ensure that social cohesion does not deteriorate further”.

After careful consideration, our committee concluded that such uncertainty could better be met by action through the existing European Union cohesion programmes, from which money would have to be diverted to fund this scheme, without burdening member states with the extra administrative obligations introduced by the proposal. The committee also concluded that the Commission had failed to put forward any convincing argument that the European Union was better placed than member states to undertake this role, and had therefore failed to justify its implied assertion that the proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity.

In summary, this is an issue of concern about process rather than one of substance. We are not seeking to deny that the substantial matter is important and of interest to all Governments—indeed, to all citizens, in our current economic difficulties—but the principle of subsidiarity is a powerful one. It should be complied with, and our view is that it has not been met on this occasion, hence our proposal to issue a reasoned opinion. I beg to move that the Grand Committee take note of the report.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I find myself, somewhat surprisingly, dealing with this for the Opposition, but I think it is because the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has lead responsibility. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for the very clear way in which he introduced the report and its recommendations.

The specific issue before us is the recommendation that support should be given to a reasoned opinion to the effect that the draft regulation does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. As we have heard, a similar issue was considered two years ago and the same conclusion reached, although that proposed regulation was withdrawn after the European Court of Justice ruling that purchases from the market, rather than use from intervention stocks, could not be made under agricultural legislation. This generated an amended proposal a year ago on which the UK took the same position, although that did not, as we heard from the noble Lord, prevent the life of the scheme being extended until 2013.

The proposal considered by the committee was for a new fund for European aid to the most deprived with the fund to address food deprivation, homelessness and material deprivation of children. It would run from 2014 to 2020. It is different from the previous programme, which grew out a need to make use of the then agricultural surpluses. It has the three strands that have been outlined. It is understood that it did not propose any additional overall expenditure, but the cost, which would be some €2.5 billion, would be met from the proposed cohesion policy—structural funds—the budget total for which is some €339 billion, or less than 1% of the total. If adopted, it would to that small extent divert funds from the structural funds.

The Commission’s impact assessment sets out that the EU has the objective of reducing by at least 20 million the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2020. However, it reports that poverty and social exclusion are rising in many countries. The explanatory note states that in 2010 nearly a quarter of Europeans were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, which was 2 million up on the previous year, with later figures confirming a worsening trend, and this at a time when the ability of member states to support the disadvantaged is in some cases diminishing. In our own country, we see a rise in homelessness and rough sleeping. The latter is up by 23% in the past year alone. According to the IFS, the number of materially deprived children is increasing, and we have the well publicised growth of food banks, and we are one of the richer countries in the EU.

Paragraph 11 of the committee’s report states that it considers that the uncertainty about cohesion can be met by action through existing EU cohesion programmes. I understand that point, but will the Minister—I am not sure whether I should be addressing the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the Minister or perhaps both of them—expand a little on that belief? How does it address the comment made in the explanatory note that some of the most vulnerable citizens who suffer from extreme forms of poverty are too far removed from the labour market to benefit from the social inclusion measures of the ESF? Would it propose any changes to the ESF programme?

Will the noble Lord please explain whether there is something inherent in the nature of the expenditure proposed in the programme—food deprivation, homelessness and material deprivation of children— which makes this a social policy matter where member states must act on their own accord or does it depend on the ability in practice of member states to resource appropriate individual country programmes? If the latter, can we hear the evidence base for the assessment that each member state is in a position to do what is necessary for its own people? Indeed, is there any point or any scale of food deprivation, homelessness and materially deprived children where the committee would accept a role for such a fund and an EU dimension?

I do not ask these questions to be difficult, but to understand the routes to addressing this awful poverty. I think the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made the point that this is not about the substance but about the mechanisms available to deal with it.

Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Boswell of Aynho

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, almost by definition those attending in this room are enthusiasts for pensions, and we are a rather self-defining and small number. Of course, I would join in the approbation of both the principle of auto-enrolment, the related but not identical issue of the NEST scheme, and the new regulations which will provide some authentic alternative tests, and will make it easier for businesses to come to terms with auto-enrolment. That seems to be very welcome, and that should be put on the record. I do not think there is any material opposition, providing that we can make these things work.

I do not wish to add to the Minister’s troubles—because some very complicated issues have been raised—save only to comment on two of them. One is in relation to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who knows this subject so well. When she raised the issue about salary sacrifice, it occurred to me that in some companies or organisations it would be not at all rare for arrangements to be made for consensual salary sacrifice with, as she said, the two options being put to an individual. There could potentially be a problem if there were a contractual arrangement, where perhaps there is a two-year undertaking and an option has been given for one or another, and the automatic enrolment might kick in in the middle. There would be difficulties unless the employer were particularly fleet of foot in ensuring that the employee was offered something new at that time because the situation might be different. That is a point of sensitivity which the Minister and officials may wish to consider.

My second point was prompted, although I am not for a moment suggesting that it is identical, by the issue about offshore employment. That is something that I have not thought much about since the days of the national minimum wage legislation, which was 15 years ago. Using that as a proxy—a very loose proxy—it occurs to me, reflecting back on the debates that we had on the Pensions Act last year, that we spent quite a lot of time talking about small pots. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who I am sure would wish to be here, mentioned extensively the position of women. One wanted them to be able to contribute; one wanted to find a cost-effective way; and one did not want the conditions to be unreasonably restrictive. That is all perfectly sensible. Then there were worries about the administrative cost and the practicability.

Perhaps for the purpose of this discussion in Grand Committee, I could mention using the proxy of offshore employment and it would be helpful if the Minister could consider the position of overseas employees. As I understand it, under the law, certainly if you are an EU and probably if you are an EEA national and you are employed here, you would expect to be offered exactly the same terms and rightly so. However, I am concerned that situations might arise where people come within the rubric, make one or two contributions and then maybe their employment shifts. They may go back to their native country because they have come here for a season, or whatever, but they will have entered into our national insurance records and into our private sector pension arrangements. Then they are left with what you might call a super-stranded or a super-small pot, to which they have an entitlement, which is difficult to claim.

This is not a completely nugatory issue. There are surprising numbers of people in this situation. For example, I remember one of the drivers at the Council of Europe, saying to me, “I have worked in London for a bit and I have got to come to London to sort out the two or three years’ of pension entitlement that I have”. That is reasonable enough. We are not arguing against the principle. However, in making the whole matter of automatic enrolment and the related matter of NEST viable, we need to try to minimise the administrative complexity and, at the same time, ensure that those who have earned entitlement should be able to avail themselves of it. It should not all disappear into a kind of bureaucratic black hole, which can be redeemed only by superhuman efforts and personal attendance at a former company’s seat. I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is nodding at that.

I do not think that either of those two points that I have raised turns us away from the sensible things that these regulations intend. However, it is important that we should think about them. In a way, this has refired my enthusiasm for the fact that we will need a structured review in four or five years’ time—in 2017—to look at whether this is working as we intend. If any of these kinds of difficulties need attention then, they should receive it, if they have not been attended to beforehand.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has dealt with the substance of these regulations from our perspective, so I can be brief and I shall ask few questions, which the Minister will doubtless be pleased to hear. We should start by acknowledging again the decision to proceed with an auto-enrolment following the independent review and to support NEST as an integral part of this. I think the Government should be congratulated on taking that forward.

As the Minister will be aware, we have concerns about the scope of some of the easements introduced by the Pensions Act 2011 and by this suite of regulations but the basic architecture remains intact. However, further increases in the personal tax allowance, should these be forthcoming in the Budget, will exclude even more workers from the benefit of auto-enrolment with consequential savings for the Treasury. Obviously, we support offshore workers being brought into scope. This was always the intention. As we have heard, the order treats someone with an offshore employment as,

“a worker ‘who is working or ordinarily works in Great Britain under the worker’s contract’”,

and similar provisions apply to Northern Ireland. However, the provisions do not apply where the employment is in the foreign sector of a cross-boundary petroleum field. Are we dealing here only with cross-boundary fields affecting Norway, or are there any others? I do not know about the Southern Basin or the Irish Sea, or whether there could be an EC country involved, which was the purpose of the question.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Boswell of Aynho

Thursday 10th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I have given notice that I intend to oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill in order to be able to return briefly, I hope, to a subject that we have touched on before. Because of its significance, I want to clarify certain points.

Specifically, does this clause introduce a change? Is it a widening of the definition of work-related activity? If it is not, one might ask why the provision is in the Bill at all. We see merit in work placements and work experience but we are trying to understand the boundaries between them and work itself. This is important, as it is being made available and could be mandated for those in the WRAG—those found not fit for work. Are those in the WRAG currently involved in work placements and work experience? If so, what safeguards are being introduced? In particular, what guidance is given to providers in the work programme about all this, and what monitoring is undertaken? Is access-to-work funding available for work experience and work placements as for work? If not, how does that help disabled people move closer to the labour market?

I shall tag one further question on to this debate. It has been reported in the press—I know that the noble Lord is reluctant to comment on press reports—that somebody who has been in the work programme for two years and has not been in employment will come off and go into some form of community service arrangement. Are we likely to see any amendments come forward in this Bill that touch on this issue, or will that be dealt with in regulations, or is it pure speculation that we can ignore?

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I invite the Minister to comment on the way that I construe the clause, which is that it is facilitative and increases flexibility, which seems to me very welcome. Adding to the list of questions given to him by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, could he also say a little about the employment status of people in this situation and, for example, their insurance and other measures of cover? I am more conscious of the situation in relation to children at school. There are sensitivities. It is important that they are got right, but the principle is a good one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, would it not also be reasonable, in cases of very substantial disasters extending perhaps beyond the compass of a single block of flats—although that would be a serious local tragedy—to look at the Bellwin scheme, which as I understand it is designed to deal not with the initial tranche of costs but with the substantial extra costs that local authorities will face if they are confronted by a major natural or physical disaster?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That was deployed in relation to the flooding in Cumbria.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Boswell of Aynho

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to this amendment, having spoken on these matters in Committee. It provides a convenient opportunity to differentiate comments that I might make on this amendment from those that I might make on a subsequent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on the impact on women. I have felt on reflection since I considered the exchanges in Committee that there is an increasing, and I think more intensely felt, acceptance on my part that we have to get on with this and therefore, in order to raise money, accelerate the equalisation of the state pension age. Because of the doctrines that we have on equal treatment, it is only at that point that we are able to effect an increase in the overall unisex state retirement age towards 66 and perhaps at a later stage further in the way that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, reasonably accepted.

We know that we have to get on with this and that we have to wrestle with longevity, which has already knocked sideways the assessments under the Pensions Act 2007. While I am aware that we are not discussing private pensions in this part of the Bill, I happened to see some figures the other day on the universities superannuation scheme that totally struck me. They suggested that since 1973 the average pension age has gone up by 13 years. We are not dealing with a static situation; we are dealing with a rapidly exploding situation in people’s state and, where they have them, private pension entitlements on account of longevity.

Therefore, again as the noble Lord very reasonably said, this raises some interesting and rather intense issues about intergenerational transfers. Either we can redistribute this—we might both perhaps wish to return to that in a later group—or we have to consider pushing some of the burden on to today’s working population and taxpayers. It is perfectly true that none of these amendments—even on the Government’s proposed timescale towards equalisation, which I accept is rather rapid—cuts into the present deficit reduction programme, the present Parliament or the immediate outcome of dealing with the crisis.

Nevertheless, we have this inexorable march forward. If we do not do something about it now, particularly if we are anxious to give the maximum possible notice, it will not be possible to tackle the pensions problem before it overwhelms us. The only people who could end up paying for this are our children and our grandchildren through their taxes because of the pay-as-you-go system. We have to grasp the nettle now.

I do know—I was rather appalled at the estimates of costs in Committee—that the noble Lord’s amendment would cost some £10 billion a year. It is a small proportion of the savings which the Government have set out in their indication of the savings. The noble Lord is shaking his head.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is not £10 billion a year; it is a net present value figure spread over five or six years.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

The noble Lord is entirely right to correct me. I had added the words “per annum”, which are not in the calculations. However, it is still a very substantial sum, and I do not think that Governments at the present juncture can forgo that. To put it another way, they would have to find an alternative means of financing even proposals that I put forward in Committee, which we may touch on later. Those were alleged to be likely to cost £7 billion, which, frankly, is rather more than I had anticipated or indeed would be sustainable. We are into a difficult calculation, but we cannot, in the circumstances of longevity, responsibly countenance the noble Lord’s amendment as it is at the moment. However, if for some reason the figures are not as pessimistic as we thought, I would very much like to hear my noble friend’s response when the time comes.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Boswell of Aynho

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I should perhaps declare that I, too, have members of my family—two daughters, in fact—who are in public sector pension schemes, and of course one hears comments of the sort that have been honourably and properly recorded by the noble Baroness. There are many people in the private sector who for a variety of reasons, not necessarily where their schemes have collapsed into the Pension Protection Fund, are feeling some stress as well. That needs to be said.

I would just say that although I did not respond to the Minister on his remarkable presentation last night with regard to the social security uprating orders, I was actually convinced by it, which I am not wholly sure that I had been until he gave that presentation. It is a change that we have to make, particularly bearing in mind that there are alternative arrangements for retirement pensions which will meet the triple test and will accelerate state retirement pension levels rather faster than the CPI.

I will make one further comment on Amendment 48A and the scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. I understand the motivation, but it is asking for a report on one-hand clapping, as the Zen Buddhists would say. It would be better expressed if it called for a report on the relative impact of the use of the CPI and of the retail prices index. We would then have some measure of comparison. As all noble Lords are aware, historically the CPI has run ahead of the RPI. My noble friend last night made representations about why this was overstating the problem and arguably would overcompensate recipients.

That leads me to make a technical comment of my own, to which my noble friend may want to respond. As one takes the heat off the RPI, it will become less immediately salient, although it will still be used and reportable for a number of purposes. As that happens, given the types of interaction and substitution effects that were rehearsed last night, it may be that it will cease to be of quite the utility that it was. Somewhere at the back of my mind—I must say it while I remember it, and hope that I still can—are my scribbled lecture notes of 45 years ago that I took on the Laspeyres and Paasche indices, and on all the different impacts of these complications. I implore noble Lords not to ask me to explain to the Committee how they work, but I will make the point that as we shift the emphasis to the CPI—that will surely be an irreversible shift, and I have given reasons for supporting the concept—the RPI will move out of focus and could become distorted in the uses for which it is still employed. Perhaps the Minister will give me some assurance that it will retain its integrity even if it is not being used for these uprating purposes.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48A in this group. I start by acknowledging the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, of the drafting; I very much take his point. I am also intrigued that he can read his notes after 45 years. I struggled today to read the notes that I made yesterday.

Amendment 48A calls for a triennial report to assess the impact of using the consumer prices index as the measure of inflation. It seeks that assessment from, among others, pension scheme members, employers, taxpayers and PPF levy payers. It is an opportunity to reflect on what has become known as the RPI/CPI switch. We stated in the other place, and again in our debate yesterday on benefit uprating, that we cannot support the decision to adopt on a permanent basis the CPI as currently constructed for the determination of benefit uprating and of pension revaluation and indexation. However, if our understanding of the process and legislation is correct, we do not need more amendments to the Bill to secure any change in future—which may help my noble friend Lady Turner. Issues of uprating pensions, including the BSP, S2P, public sector pensions and occupational pensions, are determined annually. These are undertaken by the increase in the general level of prices, which is generally not specified to be RPI or CPI, or indeed any other measure. Therefore, if I am right, a future Secretary of State could take a different view on the most appropriate measure of the increase in the general level of prices, and without the need to change primary legislation. The situation with regard to the PPF is similar. Clause 15 removes references to the retail prices index and substitutes,

“the general level of prices in Great Britain”.

But that does not lock in the CPI for all time. If I am wrong on that, perhaps the Minister will let us know, because we might want to table further amendments on Report. That runs also for the provisions of Clause 14, which my noble friend has addressed.

The change to uprating the various facets of pensions by CPI—subject to statutory caps—will, as we know, have a significant impact, particularly over time. We obviously accept that for the basic state pension, where we support the re-linking to earnings, which will provide the long-term determination of the basic state pension. For private sector occupational schemes, the extent to which the CPI ends up being used for revaluation and indexation depends on the scheme rules, and we support the Government in not pursuing the override. Nevertheless, the updated impact assessment produced by the DWP in February shows that the total cost in terms of reduction in the anticipated value of members’ pension rights—including the stock as well as the flow of pensions—is something like £86 billion, which is a considerable sum. This is not a deficit-reduction saving; it is an almost equal and opposite benefit for sponsoring employers, and there are consequential benefits to the PPF and levy payers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I will be even briefer on this amendment, having regard to the hour and the common wish to finish.

This amendment arose as the result of an approach that I received from the National Association of Pension Funds. The intention of the new clause would be to put what I might call a forward gear into the work of the Pensions Regulator. As I have explained to the Committee in the past, I have quite a lot of people in my family with a background in education. My wife for one would always say, “Emphasise the positive, don’t go around looking at the negative”. That is a good maxim for this Committee.

At the moment, as the NAPF reasonably reminds us, the Pensions Regulator has three basic statutory objectives, all of which are, at least to some extent, slightly passive, although I do not mean that they are improper: first, to protect the benefits of members of work-based pension schemes, which is hugely important; secondly, to promote the good administration of work-based pension schemes, which is also important, although administration is something that serves rather than being the main driver of the event; and, thirdly, to reduce the risk of situations arising that might lead to claims for compensation from the Pension Protection Fund. At the moment there is an interest in preventing that getting out of hand; we have discussed the levy and the burden on pension funds and, indirectly, on contributors of all kinds. No one is arguing that those objectives are wrong, but the NAPF’s concern, which I warm to, is that the last obligation—trying to avoid benefit run-off—is beginning to dominate the regulator’s activities. The overall work of the regulator is insufficiently focused on the continuation of good-quality workplace pensions. It is in the interests of the NAPF and of everyone across the Committee that that should be sustained.

What is proposed here is a simple provision that would give us a positive forward gear to promote the provision of good pensions and to ensure their health and longevity. Nobody here would dissent from that. Arguably, large parts of the Bill, particularly in relation to the NEST scheme, are focused on it, and it would be helpful to have the Minister's response in due course. He will recognise a probing amendment when he sees one. I am not committed to the exact wording, nor to the vehicle involved: but I hope that somehow we will be able to signal that the focus should be on supporting, sustaining and maintaining the positive, rather than on simply cleaning up the mess where things go wrong.

I will take one final shot. Perhaps the Minister would report on any elements of deregulation or decluttering of the business obligation that he has undertaken within the spirit of BIS’s one-in, one-out approach. That would be helpful. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will be brief. I understand the thrust of the amendment. However, I have some concerns, mainly over the wording. To place on the regulator an objective to ensure the health and longevity of good pensions is stretching a point. The regulator is focused on workplace pensions. As written, “pensions” could range over a raft of different situations, including contract-based ones as well as DB ones.

From my experience, I challenge the assertion that the regulator is overly focused on protecting the PPF. Perhaps it is easy to forget the circumstances of 2004, when DB schemes were dropping out of the system like flies. The regulator's role then made a real difference. I recall also that over the past 18 months to two years there have been constant challenges to the regulator on the grounds that requirements under recovery plans were too severe. The regulator responded in a very effective way, being clear about what flexibility there was in the system but also recognising that what was important to DB schemes was the employer covenant. Unlike insurance-based contractor arrangements, these entities are capitalised and support the provision of annuities or whatever else through that structure. For DB schemes, it is the undertaking of the employer and sponsor that is the driver. Therefore, the regulator's role in holding them to account is good.

No one would object to anyone’s role in promoting the provision of good pensions. However, in this case I would not impose the obligation to ensure their health and longevity, because these will depend on a whole raft of things, not least the commercial situation of the sponsor and what their future may be. The regulator has played an important role, and I will be interested to hear if the Minister has any proposals to change their current remit and focus.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Boswell of Aynho

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

Well, they are, and it is the Conservative Party agents’ superannuation scheme, but I promise not to detain the Committee on that. I hope I would have given the same attention to anyone else with whom I was in a trustee relationship.

May I just make two points? I fully understand that the Minister was kind enough to quote my slight reservation in our earlier exchanges on related matters. The first is a note of concern: it would certainly be unfortunate if one employer were somehow to be delinquent because of the failure of another employer to declare, which had created excess over the qualifying limit. I just make that point; I am sure my noble friend will have it in mind.

The second point is intended to be more positive and it might help to inform trains of thought. One always has to be careful about these sorts of things, not least for data protection reasons. I happened yesterday to have gone to a completely unrelated meeting in this building about occupational health, which is an interest of mine. We were looking at the new construction workers’ smart card scheme. Of course, once there is something that is able to identify the individual with known characteristics—dates of birth, for example, or presumably one could incorporate an NI number—and that is portable, it is possible for that to be tendered, or even required to be tendered, through various places of work. It might be possible to aggregate electronically in that way. I just offer that to my noble friend as a way forward. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also nodding; at least it is a thought. We always have to be careful with these things, because there will be some people on manual, some people who do not understand and minority interests and industries. But if we can possibly start working toward some sensible protocols people could use, it would be generally beneficial.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to intervene, because he challenged the description I gave of my amendment as being modest. He may have misunderstood the intent of part of it. All it was seeking to do initially was to say that if someone had qualifying earnings, with a particular employer, but not earnings that reached the trigger, and if there were a process of the employer being made aware that the trigger had been reached, the employer would automatically enrol and be responsible for contributions in respect of the earnings in that employment between the start of the qualifying earnings band and whatever that band reached. That would in a sense be stand alone for an employer. That gives exactly the same result as employees now have in being able to opt in, because if you have earnings above the threshold, but not at the trigger, you can simply opt in and get the employer contribution.



Along the way, the hope would be that, rather than relying on the activity of the employee—because we are always trying to deal with the inertia problem—you could somehow make it more automatic. It would be automatic, though, only in the sense of the employer being aware that the trigger had been reached. It would not require any aggregation of earnings by any employer. I instance how HMRC deals with notices of coding. If people have two or more jobs, on one basis or another the personal allowance is divvied up across their notices of coding—don’t ask me how. In a sense, an employer would be aware that other earnings may be involved. That sort of process could be a trigger for automatically alerting the employer that the trigger had been reached and simply then requiring them to deal with auto-enrolment on the earnings that the employee is being paid by that employer. My amendment would do no more than that.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Boswell of Aynho

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

For noble Lords who were anticipating a debate around PUCODIs, I advise them not to blink. This is just a gentle probe about the effects of getting rid of PUCODIs; hopefully, we communicated the nature of the inquiry to the Bill team to make it a bit easier on the Minister’s time. Clause 2 removes the right to receive payable uprated contracted-out deduction increments from 6 April 2012. It does not, as I understand it, affect awards already in payment, so the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, can relax, although I understand that he will be CPIed on it in the future. I imagine that at the moment it will buy him a thimbleful of petrol, if that.

Let me be clear: we support this measure and consider it to be a sensible tidying-up. My probe is about what we understand to be the range of PUCODIs that would have been payable but for this abolition. The notes accompanying the impact assessments point out that the overall saving is less than £1 million—pretty small beer. For those currently in receipt, we are told that 80 per cent receive less than £1 per week, and for inherited rights the mean is about 60p per week. However, we are also told that the maximum payment is £14 per week, and £6.30 per week for inherited rights. Removing a few pence as a top-up is one thing, but taking away £700 per year is potentially something else. Perhaps amounts build to these levels only after a period of time, so maybe it is not an issue. Nevertheless, I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments about the spread of what would otherwise have arisen, to see whether there are any issues there or whether it really is de minimis.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has been kind enough both to mention my name and to tempt me. I shall disappoint the Committee, I am sure, by indicating that I have no intention whatever of explaining how PUCODIs work or how important they are to one’s lifestyle. All I can say is that I indicated at Second Reading, and a further reading of my recent annual pension statement appears to confirm this, that I think that I have one. However, rather in the manner of one of my masters at school who conducted a survey among the masters’ common room into the wearing of long johns in the winter and found that a significant number of people did not know, I am not absolutely sure that I have one. For the avoidance of doubt, it certainly is not in the range of £14 a week; it is much lower than that, although it is more than £1.

I simply make the point that this is an example of complexity and I am sure that we need to remove it. I am pleased to see the noble Lord who moved the amendment nodding to that. It is an example of how even people who know a modest amount about the system do not know everything that is applied. It creates problems that are almost in geometric progression: the more complex the system is, the less easy it is for people to understand it and the greater the chance of making mistakes. As one building block of the programme of simplification and consolidation, this is a modest but essential measure. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation—if he understands PUCODIs too.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I really am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this incredible opportunity to talk about PUCODIs. I have to quote the noble Lord himself from 2007, when he said:

“This is a technical area and, despite the hour, I hope that the Committee will bear with me as I explain”.—[Official Report, 4/6/07; col. 875.]

He then gave an explanation, but I am convinced that, to his disgrace, he has forgotten every single word that he said to the Committee.

The essential point regarding the payable uprated contracted-out deduction increment is that these payments are very small. As the noble Lord pointed out, 77 per cent of recipients get less than £1 per week. Where it is in payment, it represents 0.6 per cent, on average, of an individual state pension income. Most of the people in receipt are women—93,000 out of 118,000 people are women—and the average received by women is slightly higher than by men. Bluntly, though, both are around 20p per week.

Around 6,000 of the 9,000 in receipt of inherited awards are women. The average received by women is again similar to men: around 30p per week. The original policy intention of the PUCODI was to ensure parity between those who were contracted out, and those who were not. However, as noble Lords will be aware, contracting-out on a defined contribution basis is being abolished from April 2012. The proposed abolition of new awards of PUCODIs for members of such schemes is linked to the abolition of defined contribution contracting-out. I shall not go into the detail of the timings, except to assure the noble Lord that it has never been the Government’s intention to bring the proposed legislation into force before 6 April 2012.

I am not sure that I have a reliable spread, although I am very happy to write making clear what the spread of payments is. However, given the averages we are talking about, there are going to be fairly few outliers. The point is that, as the name suggests, there is an element of choice for people when they take them. They are delaying payment of their contracted-out pension, and there is therefore an element of choice. If the loss is too much, they can start to take it, so there is an element of market balance for the outliers. I will write about that very specific point beyond the averages.

As the noble Lord said in his introduction, it is not his intention to do anything more than find out some of this detail, and I am sure that he will be pleased to withdraw the amendment.