Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech

Home » Posts tagged 'pensions'

Tag Archives: pensions

The article by Rachel Reeves MP is a 'two fingers' at disabled citizens, and will lose Miliband the election



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is actually massively upsetting.

For many citizens, hardworking or not, Ed Miliband was finally beginning to show ‘green shoots’ in his leadership. His conference speech in Brighton was professionally executed, and it largely made sense given what we know about his general approach to the markets and State.

Amazing then it took fewer than a few weeks for his reshuffle to ruin all that.

Parking aside how Tristram Hunt MP had changed his mind about ‘free schools’ such that they were no longer for ‘yummy mummies’ in West London, Rachel Reeves MP decided to come out as a macho on welfare. She boasted on Twitter that she was both ‘tough and fair on social security’.

Rachel Reeves’ article was immediately received by a torrent of abuse, and virtually all of it was well reasoned and fair.

Yes, that’s right. In one foul swoop, we managed to conflate at one the ‘benefit scroungers’ rhetoric with an onslaught on ‘social security’.

Being ‘tough and fair’ on the “disability living allowance”, in the process of becoming the ‘personal independence payment’ is of course an abhorrent concept. I only managed to be awarded my DLA after a gap of one year, after it had been taken away by this Government without them telling me. At first, it was refused through a pen-and-paper exercise from the DWP. Then, it was successfully restored after I turned up in person at a tribunal in Gray’s Inn Road.

This living allowance meets my mobility needs. My walking is much impaired, following my two months in a coma. It also meets my living requirements, allowing me to lead an independent life.

I don’t want to hear Reeves talking like a banker but as if she doesn’t give a flying fig about real people in the real world.

For once, the outrage on Twitter, and the concomitant mobbing, was entirely justified. I had to look up again what her precise rôle was – yes it was the shadow secretary for work and pensions, not employment.

Many members of Labour were sickened. A spattering of people, would-be Councillors in the large part unfortunately, didn’t see what the fuss was about. They reconciled that ‘the sooner we face up to this problem, the better’.

The media played it as ‘the hard left of the Labour Party are upset’.

The “Conservative Home” website played it as a sign that the Labour Party were belatedly adopting the Conservatives’ narrative, but it was too little and too late.

Like Ed Miliband being booed at conference, a backlash against Reeves’ article can euphemistically be indicative of Labour’s success at ‘sounding tough’.

At yet, this is ‘short term’ politics from a national political party. The social value of this policy by Labour is not sustainable. In the quest for instant profit for headlines, it will actually find itself with no income stream in the long term.

For all the analysis with Labour marketing must have done through their ‘think tanks’ and ‘focus groups’, it is striking how Labour have missed one fundamental point. That disabled bashing in the media is not populism from the Left, actually.

Conversely, it could LOSE them votes from their core membership.

If they learn to love disabled people, they could WIN votes.

Simples.

So what’s the fuss about? She didn’t mention disability. Well – precisely. Disabled citizens of working age are known to form a large part of the population, as Scope reminded us this week in their session on ‘whole person care’ with Liz Kendall MP, so why did Reeves ignore them altogether?

Is it because she has only been in a brief only a few days? Some of us in life have taken the bullet for incidents in life which have lasted barely a few minutes.

What will it take for Labour to ‘get it’ on disability and welfare? Possibly, the final denouement will be when Labour finally realises it can’t ‘out Tory’ the Tories.

The Twitter defenders of the indefensible cite that ATOS are being ‘sacked’ – well, yippedeeeday. ATOS, who were appointed by Labour, are finally being sacked. When negotiating a contract in English law, the usual procedure is to ensure that there are feedback mechanisms in place to ensure the contract is being performed adequately? You can bet your bottom dollar that Labour wishes to do a ‘Pontius Pilate’ on that, like it does on all its crippling PFI contracts it set up for the NHS.

This is a disastrous start by Reeves, but ‘things can only get better’. It’s not so much that Rachel Reeves is Liam Byrne in a frock that hurts. It’s the issue that shooting the messenger won’t be the final solution in changing Labour’s mindset on this.

It is all too easy to blame the ‘subeditor’, but the subeditor didn’t write the whole piece. Any positive meme from Reeves, in a ‘well crafted speech’ to “out-Tory the Tories” (such as scrapping the ‘Bedroom Tax’), has been instantaneously toxified by the idea of people ‘lingering on benefits’.

The most positive thing to do was to explain how people might not be so reliant on benefits, such as work credits, if we had a strong economy.

Reeves chose not even to mention pensions, which is a large part of her budget.

Because the article was hopeless from the outset, it could not even get as far as how to get the long-term unemployed (or the long-term sick) safely back to work.

It was an epic fail.

It is, in fact, an epic fail on all three planks of Ed Miliband’s personal mission of ‘One Nation': the economy, not recognising the value of disabled citizens of working age to the economy; society, not recognising disabled citizens as valued members of society; and the political process, totally disenfranchising disabled citizens from being included in society.

It is no small thing to wish the Labour Party to fail as well as a result. But this may now be necessary, and Reeves should take the bullet for that if she doesn’t improve.

Together



 

 

 

Ed Miliband will need to engage a different spirit in 2015, seventy years after that needed for 1945. The Conservatives have become the presentational unit of multinational corporates, and many citizens of the United Kingdom resent this. Whereas instead decades ago, the Unions could be validly criticised as ‘holding the county’ to ransom, now it is the bankers. There is no proof for any ‘trickle down’ effect, where allowing millionaires to keep more of their income and wealth benefits the county at large. David Cameron strikingly did not win the General Election in 2015, meaning that he has been reliant on the Liberal Democrats ditching any principles to vote for legislation which is clearly totally illiberal, such as secret courts. Rather than working in the national interest, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been operating entirely in their own self-interest, doggedly pursuing policies which serious commentators have long criticised for being a perfect recipe for producing economic turmoil. Members of this Coalition confront serious issues with extreme arrogance and disregard for the facts, as demonstrated by Baroness Shirley Williams and Lord Clement-Jones in the recent section 75 NHS regulations debate in the House of Lords.

 

Labour has been blasted for not having any policies. This changed today, but don’t expect the BBC to cover any of them well, in the same vein as how they totally ignored the changes in legal aid and the NHS the point of absolute ridicule. Labour’s idea of a “Jobs Bill”, which introduces a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, a paid job for every adult who is out of work for more than two years, is a serious way of addressing the problem of youth unemployment. Generally, unemployment has been creeping up under this Coalition, and the only reason there are so many in employment is that they are many more with very little employment rights, doing short term contract work to try to pay the bills. There is absolutely no economic case for the tax cut for millionaires, but the political case of nudging them into voting for a discredited Coalition is quite potent. The idea of requiring large firms getting government contracts to have an active apprenticeships scheme that ensures opportunities to work for the next generation is a very attractive one, and is very much in keeping with an idea very popular in the United States of making corporates behave like ‘responsible corporate citizens’. Indeed, Ed Miliband introduced this idea to an unconvinced general public in his now famous Labour Party Conference speech of September 2010 on ‘responsible capitalism'; this was clearly before we’d all even heard of ATOS and welfare benefits, corporates and phone hacking, fires, explosions and collapses in Texas and Bangladesh.

 

Also, a “Banking Bill” is much needed. The aim of this is to reate a real British Investment Bank on a statutory basis, at arms length from government and with proper financing powers to operate like a bank. One of the persistent criticisms of the current government, which Nick Clegg had criticised of Labour in 2010 but subsequently totally failed to address himself, is the issue of how to get banks lending to small businesses. Project Merlin is well known, and the purpose of this intended legislation by Labour is to support small and medium sized businesses, including across the regions of the UK through regional banks. Labour intends to provide a general backstop power so that if there is not genuine culture change from the banks they can be broken up, to put in place a “Code of Conduct” for bankers, and to toughen up generally the criminal sanctions against those involved in financial crime. Furthermore, Labour’s idea of an “Immigration Bill” is very noteworthy, given how Gordon Brown was caught famously unawares by Gillian Duffy in the now famous “Bigotgate” incident. Labour intends to double the fines for breaching the National Minimum Wage and give local councils the power to take enforcement action over the national minimum wage, extend the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to other sectors where abuse is taking place, and change NMW regulations to stop employers providing overcrowded and unsuitable tied accommodation and offsetting it against workers’ pay.

 

There is now a crisis in social housing, not least because the Thatcher government sold off valuable social housing stock during her period of government. However, unfortunately, we can’t ‘turn back the clock’ to his very socially divisive period for the UK. The economy has become too much on the side of exploitative private landlords, and Labour intends to introduce a national register of landlords, to allow local authorities to root out and expel rogue landlords, including those who pack people into overcrowded accommodation. Labour also intends to tackle rip-off letting agents, ending the confusing, inconsistent fees and charges, and to seek to give greater security to families who rent and remove the barriers that stand in the way of longer term tenancies. Labour fundamentally does not know to what extent the UK will be recovering by the time of the General Election in 2015. The public are already sick to the back teeth of the trite “the economy is healing” pathetic PR by the Coalition, particularly since the economy WAS healing in May 2010 before the Coalition totally destroyed it. Labour’s proposed “Finance Bill” would reintroduce a 10p rate of income tax, paid for by taxing mansions worth over £2m, stop immediately the cut to the 50p rate of income tax for those on the highest incomes to reverse cuts to tax credits, reverse the Tory-led Government’s damaging VAT rise now for a temporary period – a £450 boost for a couple with children, and provide a one year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements, repairs and maintenance – to help homeowners and small businesses. Courageously, Labour intends to put in place a one year national insurance tax break for every small firm which takes on extra workers, helping small businesses to grow and create jobs

 

There is a growing feeling that the economy is fundamentally imbalanced towards the interests of shareholders in fragmented oligopolies, rather than the concerns of the general public. Labour wishes to introduce a Bill where it would abolish Ofgem and create a tough new energy watchdog with the power to force energy suppliers to pass on price cuts when the cost of wholesale energy falls. This would be a very popular move with many in the general public, not just traditional Labour voters. This legislation would require the energy companies to pool the power they generate and to make it available to any retailer, to open the market and to put downward pressure on prices, and force energy companies to put all over-75s on their cheapest tariff helping those benefiting to save up to £200 per year. The railway industry is another fiasco of the utterly discredited privatisation doctrine of the Conservatives. Labour intends to apply ‘strict caps’ on fare rises on every route, and remove the right for train companies to vary regulated fares by up to 5 per cent above the average change in regulated fares, and to introduce a new legal right for passengers to the cheapest ticket for their journey. Finally, many members have become increasingly irritated by the propensity of the Conservatives to call pensions ‘welfare payments’. Labour now has concrete plans to tackle the worst offending pension schemes by capping their charges at a maximum of 1 per cent; and to amend legislation and regulation to force all pension funds to offer the same simple transparent charging structure so that consumers know the price they will be paying before they choose a particular scheme.

 

So finally we are getting a sense of the direction of travel of Labour, and this is in stark contrast to the hapless ipeptidude and incompetence of the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Conservatives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anticipated changes to the employment and pensions system in England in 2012



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a recent meeting of the BPP Legal Awareness Society, we discussed forthcoming developments in English law to do with employment and pensions.

This description does not constitute legal advice, and the information presented here is to the best of the knowledge of the Legal Awareness Society, as presented at BPP Law School, Holborn, 26 January, 5 pm, room 2.4

 1. Qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection is increased

The Government sought to “radically slimming down” the existing dismissal processes, and seek views on how to achieve this, including, potentially, by making changes to the “Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures”.

On 3 October 2011, the Government announced that the qualifying period for an employee to bring an unfair dismissal claim will increase from one year to two years. This change will come into force on 6 April 2012.

The increase was originally proposed in the Government’s Resolving workplace disputes: public consultation (on the BIS website), which states that the increase will: “provide more time for employers and employees to resolve difficulties, give employers greater confidence in taking on people and ease the burden on the employment tribunal process”. (This document is appended to this handout.)

In January 2012, the Government confirmed that the increase will apply only to employees who join an employer on or after 6 April 2012. The current one-year qualifying period will continue to apply to employees who started their employment prior to 6 April 2012.

Compulsory retirement dismissals instigated on or after 6 April 2011 may amount to unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and direct age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1069), which came into force on 6 April 2011, removed retirement from s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as a potentially fair reason for dismissal. Retirement dismissals are likely to be considered as “some other substantial reason” dismissals and must be effected using a fair procedure.

2. Changes to employment tribunal procedure

The Government has asked the outgoing President of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, Mr Justice Underhill, to carry out a “fundamental review” of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, with the intention of producing a streamlined procedural code that addresses concerns that the Rules have become “increasingly complex and unwieldy over time”. Underhill is to provide a recommended revised procedural code by the end of April 2012.

There is going to be a “fundamental review” of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, with substantial changes to employment tribunal procedure expected to be introduced on 6 April 2012. Employment judges will hear unfair dismissal cases alone in the tribunal, unless they direct otherwise.

3. Pensions auto-enrolment begins

The state pension system currently combines a contributory state scheme, consisting of a basic retirement pension and an additional pension (previously the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme, now the state second pension (S2P)), with a private system of occupational and personal pensions.   The state pension age for men is 65. It is in the process of increasing from 60 to 65, for women. It will have reached 65 by 6 November 2018. It is due to increase to 66 for men and women by October 2020.

In what may prove to be one of the biggest challenges of the year for larger employers, starting from 1 October 2012, employers with 50 or more employees have to enrol eligible employees automatically, and make mandatory employer contributions, into a qualifying workplace pension scheme or the National Employment Savings Trust (Nest).

4. Statutory redundancy payments and guarantee payments increase

 

The maximum amount of a week’s pay used to calculate a statutory redundancy payment and the basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal increases from £400 to £430 on 1 February 2012. The maximum unfair dismissal compensatory award increases from £68,400 to £72,300. The limit on the amount of a guarantee payment payable to an employee in respect of any day also increases from £22.20 to £23.50.

5. Maternity, paternity, adoption and sick pay increase

Vince Cable has re-affirmed the Government’s commitment to extend the right to request flexible working, and to “modernise” maternity leave so that it becomes “shared and flexible parental leave”. The Government has confirmed that the standard rate of statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay will increase from £128.73 to £135.45 per week from 1 April 2012. Statutory sick pay will increase from £81.60 to £85.85 per week from 6 April 2012.

6. Some various other moves afoot

Compromise agreements

The Government will create a “standard text” for compromise agreements, with guidance. It will consider amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to allow compromise agreements to cover all existing and future claims without the need to list many separate causes of action. The Government will change the name of compromise agreements to “settlement agreements” in primary legislation.

Mediation

The Government is, following the consultation, “even more convinced” about the role that mediation can play. It intends to introduce a requirement for all potential tribunal claims to be lodged with ACAS, to give the parties a chance to resolve the matter through early conciliation. The basic early conciliation period will be one month. Where early conciliation is refused or is unsuccessful the claimant will be allowed to lodge his or her claim with the tribunal. The Government will also pilot the creation of regional mediation networks.

Financial penalties The Government intends to introduce a discretionary power for employment tribunals to impose a financial penalty on employers that have been found to have breached employment rights, payable to the Exchequer. The financial penalty will be based on the total amount of the tribunal award, with a minimum threshold of £100 and a maximum of £5,000. A penalty will be reduced by 50% if payment is made within 21 days.

TUPE

The Government has launched a call for evidence on the effectiveness of the TUPE regulations and how they might be improved. The Government is “concerned” that some businesses believe the TUPE regulations are “gold-plated” and overly bureaucratic. The call for evidence is open from 23 November 2011 to 31 January 2012.

Collective redundancies

The Government has launched a call for evidence regarding the rules governing statutory consultations on collective redundancies. In particular, it wishes to “explore the consequences” of reducing the current 90-day consultation period to 60, 45 or 30 days. The call for evidence is open from 23 November 2011 to 31 January 2012.

Criminal Records Bureau checks

From 2013, once a CRB check has been completed, the results will be available online for employers to confirm that no new information has been added since the check was originally conducted. This will mean that CRB checks are portable, and that an employee will not have to have a new check every time he or she starts a new job.

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech