Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Freud (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 3 November 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.


Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, Amendment 52D would take a power to disregard the full amount of any pension contributions from the assessment of both single and joint claimants’ income. In the universal credit White Paper, we set out our intention to disregard 50 per cent of contributions to an occupational private pension from the income assessment. This balances our commitment to encourage pension saving with fairness to the taxpayer and it is the current treatment in the benefits system. It is true that in tax credits 100 per cent of pension contributions are ignored, but tax credits are based on gross income. This is not therefore directly comparable with the 50 per cent disregard in the benefits system. In addition to the disregard, universal credit claimants will also have tax relief on their pension contributions. This means that for each pound that goes into the pension pot of an employee who is a basic rate taxpayer and in receipt of universal credit, the take-home income is reduced by only 34 pence after minimum employer contributions, tax relief and increased universal credit payments are taken into account. It would cost approximately an additional £200 million a year to move from 50 per cent to a full disregard. While this would no doubt be welcomed by claimants on low incomes, not all taxpayers who do not claim benefits have the advantage of a private or occupational pension. We must therefore take a balanced approach to the disregard of pension contributions, and we believe that 50 per cent is the appropriate level. Pension contributions are disregarded from the income assessment in tax credits. We have taken the view that this is one of several areas in which tax credits have been excessively generous to claimants when the position of the average taxpayer is taken into account. On the operational point, we are already operating a 50 per cent disregard, including a payment towards personal pensions. The rules will operate in a similar way to the way that they do now, but clearly we will not be able to do all this through RTI, so there will need to be some direct reporting. Picking up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made about what we are doing for asset accumulation, I can point to a series of measures that the Government are taking in that area, not least the support being provided to lower-income houses to purchase a home. In universal credit, households are able to save up to £6,000 with no impact on the universal credit award. I should point out that an average household with a working-age adult has average savings of £300. The convention is that ““two Baronesses”” makes ““noble Lords””. If I made a mistake during debate on the previous amendment, I was possibly slurring my ““s””. In this case, I can ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c472-3GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Disability Disclosure of information Devolved matters Childcare Appeals Costs Housing benefit Employment Jobseeker's allowance Earnings rules Medical examinations Mental illness Pension credit Pilot schemes Personal income Pensions Scotland Social security benefits Welfare tax credits Standards Working hours Wales Research Work capability assessment Universal credit
Legislation
Welfare Reform Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk