WOMEN'S PENSIONS

There was a very interesting exchange as first business in the House of Lords earlier today - so interesting that I reproduce it in full:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty’s Government:
When they will report on their commitment, made during the passage of the Pensions Act 2007 through Parliament, to help women to buy back additional national insurance years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): My Lords, the Government committed to look at a range of options to help individuals who have gaps in their national insurance contribution records to purchase additional voluntary contributions. This work is now complete. The options were analysed in terms of fairness, affordability and simplicity. The Government have concluded that none of the options considered passes these assessment criteria and none is particularly well targeted, and therefore have decided to make no changes to the current rules to allow individuals to buy additional national insurance contributions. (So, as per standard NuLabour practice, the commitment we made wasn't the one anybody else thought it was and, even if it was, we're not going to honour it anyway - so there!)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am profoundly dismayed by that Answer. In my view, it will not do. (And I'm mightily pissed off that the Government of which I was once a (reasonably) prominent member is behaving in such a shabby way.) Does my noble friend accept that there are coming before the Commons, and therefore to your Lordships’ House in due course, the National Insurance Contributions Bill and the personal accounts Pensions Bill and that, if this House agrees, we will continue to fight to ensure that women who have been carers do not find themselves penalised by going into retirement with an incomplete, poor pension? (And there will be blood on the Government carpet once we've cobbled together a cross-party alliance to defeat them on the issue.)
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I well understand the disappointment of my noble friend and others in the House, particularly as she has campaigned so effectively on this issue, but the position is as I have outlined. We should not lose sight of what has happened under this Government in improvements to pensions, particularly for women. For example, the reduction in the number of qualifying years needed for a full basic state pension is 30—a key measure—and, for the first time, paid and credited contributions for caring will be recognised equally for basic state pension and state second pension. (We've done our bit and thrown money at just about everything under the sun; the only trouble is we're beginning to run out of the stuff so we can't afford to pay for this. And frankly we've made such a mess of the economy that it's all going belly up in the next few months.) Those are important developments, but I am well aware that this debate is quite likely to continue with those two pieces of legislation. (And I'm not looking forward to it.)
Lord Fowler: My Lords, does the Minister not remember that when the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was put to this House it was agreed to by a margin of 179 votes to 86? Surely it is a sensible measure; it gives flexibility and it particularly helps women in retirement. Frankly, the sooner it is done, the better. (The Conservatives will stand four square behind any proposals Baroness Holls may bring forward.)
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am not sure that we on this side should take any lessons from the pensions record of the Conservatives. (I'm getting a bit tetchy so better use this default response; and if things continue to be a bit tricky, I'll have to resort to giving ourselves a glowing report on our record in Government too.) The challenge for the measures was to reach those people whom my noble friend most wanted to reach but not to have to bear the cost of the others. That has been the difficulty. For example, if this is a policy commitment that the Opposition want to take on, let me explain that the option of an extra nine years pre-2010 and six years post-2010 would cost in cash terms a bit short of £5 billion to 2050—net present value, in prices terms, £1.3 billion. (As I've said, we've made such a mess of the economy - and got all our spending priorities wrong - so we can't afford it.) That is the analysis and that is the issue before us.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, when I became general-secretary of my trade union in 1986, I inherited a situation in which part-time women workers were ineligible for the pension scheme? I not only provided for them to become members of the scheme but I backdated the years of service to ensure that they paid money for those years that they had already completed. (Gizzajob!) I hope that the Government do the same with the national insurance contributions.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, pensioners have been well served by this Government. Let us look at the facts of what has happened since 1997. (Phew, a soft ball that I can bat back by bleating about our record.) Currently, only around 35 per cent of women reaching state pension age are entitled to a full basic state pension. When the 2010 changes come in, that figure will be three-quarters and, in 2025, 90 per cent, which will be equality with men. Because of the changes that we have made to the state second pension, 2.1 million carers, more than 90 per cent of them women, and 6.1 million low earners, almost 60 per cent of them women, are included in the scheme, which did not provide for them before.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, today of all days, when the Government have finally run up the white flag after their appalling treatment of the 125,000 robbed pensioners, this is the last day to try to defend the indefensible on this issue? I give notice that, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, we on these Benches will be fighting as hard as we can during consideration of the upcoming Pensions Bill to ensure that people get justice. (Can we join in - in a squeaky voice - and clobber the Government too with our tickling sticks?) Does the Minister not accept that what is happening here is a Labour Government spending billions to help rich people by giving them top-rate tax relief and preventing poor women, with broken work records, from saving for a modest pension?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it must be easy being a Liberal Democrat: you are responsible for nothing and it does not matter what spending commitments you make, as we see far too often. (I'm definitely getting very tetchy now especially as those fluffy LibDems are having a go at me too. Leave me alone. I didn't make the mess we're in and, anyway, this lark of 'defending the indefensible' is above my pay grade. Just leave me alone.) If one looks at who would not benefit from the proposals, one sees that it would be the poorest women, because the poorest women headed for pension credit would lose pound for pound if they were asked to cough up for additional class 3 contributions. The proposals would not help those women who could not get beyond 60 per cent of their spouse’s pension; they would simply be paying in money to no avail. It is not right to characterise it as the noble Lord has done.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords—
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords—
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords—

(Can we all join in giving Lord Mackenzie a hard time?)
Noble Lords: The Cross Benches. (See ... self-regulation works!?!)
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, the Government are developing a strategy for carers across the board and I am pleased to be part of that work, but surely it is beyond belief that a group of carers and people who have had caring responsibilities are going to be discriminated against in recouping the pensions that they could have been entitled to if they not taken on that role. (I'm signing up to supporting Baroness Hollis.) Will the Government please reconsider, because this is extremely unfortunate?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I stress again that the challenge has been to reach the very people whom the noble Baroness describes. (They won't notice notice if I repeat the same old garbage; even if they do, time is nearly up so, if I can pad it out just a little bit more ....) That is not possible without great intricacies and complications, which is one of the criteria that we set our face against when we discuss these things in this House. The reality is that the role of carers going forward is significantly improved for the reasons that we gave when we debated the Pensions Bill earlier this year. (Thank God that's over!)

I add only one thought. It is passing strange that, following hard on the heels of trying to make friends of their enemies by enlisting GOATs (for the uninitiated, Government Of All the Talents), the Great Bottler's government cavalierly makes enemies of its erstwhile friends. After all Baroness Hollis was not only a fairly senior Minister for Bliar - though not with an especially Bliar-ite reputation, just solid Labour - but she is also one of the most knowledgeable people on the subject of pensions in Parliament.

The words "trolley, "falling", "wheels" and "off" all come to mind.

TEBBIT HUMOUR/"SMART METERS"

There was an amusing little exchange between Norman Tebbit and Jeff Rooker - for me two of the place's star performers - in the House of Lords earlier this week:

"Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it not clear that the Government and Ministers in particular—with the honourable exception of the noble Lord—are doing all they can to save electricity? They seem to be working in the dark all the time.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no, I am not going to answer that."

I'm not surprised Jeff Rooker didn't want to answer it.!!!

On a more serious note, Jeff Rooker also mentioned "smart meters" during the exchanges: "At present, they are mainly available only for electricity, but apparently displays for gas and water are being developed. They are small, portable, hand-held devices, which can be used in the business or at home, allowing one to read the meter. More important, they can transmit to the energy company the amount of energy used, so estimated bills are not required." (my emphasis). What I'm wondering is whether the category of data that can be transmitted is regulated in any way. If it is not, it is yet another example of how potentially leaky our data security has become.

PNR (PASSENGER NAME RECORD) DATA/THE PRUM TREATY

(I apologise. I'm so incensed by this subject that I've (possibly) got a bit carried away and this post has ended being rather longer than I intended. It's still worth reading though, trust me.)

I've said previously that I would post something about PNR data and, as it happens, a decent/appropriate 'hook' has arrived in the shape of a truly chilling and scandalous debate in the House of Lords this past Thursday. It was a 'doubled-up' debate on two Reports - one on PNR data and the other on the Prum Treaty, a subject I was not particularly familiar with but which looks, at first blush, as if it could be even worse than PNR data - from the European Union Home Affairs Committe and I invite you, dear reader, to digest it at your leisure - and the original Report(s) (PNR data here and the Prum Treaty here) together with the Government's Responses (here and here respectively).

Given the importance of the subject matter, it was disappointing (to say the least) that there were so few speakers - and that tells its own story about the quality of scrutiny to which the current government is subjected - although, to be charitable, it could be that the business managers deliberately scheduled the debate for late on a Thursday when the vast majority of the old duffers have already quit the asylum for the week-end. Mind you, the membership of the Upper House (with one or two notable exceptions) isn't exactly renowned for its grasp of matters technological and that may have had something to do with it too. In these circumstances, those who did participate (Lords Wright of Richmond, Jopling, Harrison, and Marlesford, and Baronesses Ludford, Harris of Richmond, and Neville-Jones) deserve an especial honourable mention in despatches, not least because, to a man, they gave The Admiral (Lord West of Spithead and the Minister with the dubious honour of responding to the debate) a right royal mauling and roasting (albeit in a very lordly way). I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for the old sea dog having drawn the short straw on this one - surely not what he expected when he decided to draw the Government's shilling.

Now many people will imagine that PNR data is just one of those rather arcane and esoteric things that governments do - the standard "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. But anyone who's travelled to the US and experienced the US-VISIT data collection programme first hand will know that the variety and extent of information required (including credit card details,&c) is profoundly intrusive, if you will an extensive 'electronic footprint' of the indivual concerned. Speaking for myself, I'm not at all sanguine about governments compiling such extensive information about me, partly because of their staggering incompetence in administering and securing that data (viz: the HMRC debacle) and partly because, in fact, I have a prior and enforceable right to privacy, a right which is constantly being salami-sliced by government, the very institution that should have, as one of its primary responsibilities, the duty of protecting it!

Manifestly use of PNR data is a circumstance where the right to privacy is being serially compromised and emasculated. I won't regale you, dear reader, with a full history of the whole sorry saga. By all means, read the debate and the Reports(s) for that sort of detail and draw your own conclusions about how we've arrived at the ordure we're now in and who/what is to blame for getting us there. (Wendy Grossman has a v.useful analysis of the whole shambles here.) It is enough to say that those ham-fisted EU negotiators have managed to botch the agreement with the US so that we now have fewer data protection safeguards than previously. Incidentally, Lord Wright of Richmond was explicit about this; in the debate he says:

"the worst possible conclusion would be an agreement that again was accompanied by a letter allowing the United States to disregard its provisions almost at will. Yet this is precisely what emerged in July from the negotiations."

QED.

In addition - and this is one of the things about all this that really makes my blood boil - the agreement is almost certainly of questionable legality. I'll give just two examples. First, as I understand it, UK data protection law (derived from an EU directive and so the same provisions should apply at the pan-European level) requires that processing of data must be limited to the purpose for which it was originally collected. The singular purpose of the US-VISIT programme at its inception was as a counter-terrorism measure - and, in fact, there are exemptions (what a surprise!) on the face of the DPA allowing processing for the purposes of national security, &c. So far so good. But, over the years, that hoary old chestnut 'function creep' has sidled on to the scene. So the new agreement with the US seems to allow processing for general crime, 'communicable diseases', &c purposes, that is to say a whole bunch of things way beyond what was originally intended by the programme itself and way beyond what appears to be sanctioned by EU-wide data protection law. Secondly, there is a general presumption in law that our data will not be sent to third party countries where the data protection regime is weaker or inferior to the standards established in the EU - although again I think there may be an exemption for national security. The US is such a place and it follows therefore that there should be a presumption against the transfer of data there for general processing purposes. But this is precisely what the new agreement allows for. Needless to say there are other areas where the agreement may well breach the spirit, if not the letter of the DPA. Little wonder therefore that the European Data Protection Supervisor and national data protection authorities have been so lukewarm about the subject. As Lord Wright of Richmond puts it:

"Our views were and are shared by the equivalent committee of the European Parliament, by the European data protection supervisor and his deputy, who gave us written and oral evidence, and by the working party of national data protection supervisors, which, of course, includes among its members this country’s Information Commissioner, Mr Richard Thomas."

To cap it all, our lords and masters (throughout the EU) appear to imagine that a letter - a mere letter, for crying out loud!!! - from the US Department of Homeland Security (presumably this one) is an adequate legal foundation for the whole agreement. No legally enforceable treaty, no memoranda of understanding or what-have-you. No, just a letter! So, if we, the citizens of the EU, fall foul of the programme for any reason, we are expected to rely on the reassurances contained in this letter (and I wouldn't mind betting it's not worth the paper it's printed on) as our means of legal redress. And the Admiral's take on all this? Well, when asked during the debate by Baroness Ludford whether this letter was "legally binding" his reply was: " ... perhaps I may get back in writing to the noble Baroness on that specific point. I am not clear on it myself." WTF?!!? He's a Minister of the Crown, for heaven's sake. He should know the answer to such a basic question. And, if he doesn't, what on earth is our Government up to entering into an agreement with a foreign power when it's not even certain of its legal efficacy? You couldn't make it up!

Of course what makes all of this so much worse is that the whole sorry mess has been stitched up behind closed doors. Both the EU/US agreement on PNR data and the Prum Treaty were achieved (Lord Wright of Richmond again):

" ... with no consultation, no explanatory memorandum, no impact assessment, no overall evaluation of the operation of the treaty, no estimate of the cost to member states and minimal involvement of the European Parliament and national parliaments."

No, the power-crazed gauleiters within both the Commission and the governments of the Member States have just decided that the agreement, with all its manifest failings and flaws, is good for us so we have to like it or lump it. As Baroness Ludford puts it:

"Governments, Ministers and national officials are giving themselves arrogant licence to do what they like and then try to pull the wool over our eyes."

Now, even those who view the collection of all this information with equanimity should be able to concede that this is unacceptable. It is just so profoundly undemocratic.

But (and I find this almost impossible to credit) it gets worse. Not content with comprehensively screwing up the agreement with the US, in their arrogance our lords and masters have concluded that they would like their own VISIT-type programme to play with. According to this article from John Lettice in The Register, a Framework Decision has already been made (on 6th November) with the intention of implementing an EU-wide version of the US-VISIT programme, possibly even extending to internal flights (something that was first mooted by the UK Presidency of the EU in the wake of the London bombings back in 2005; i.e. the UK Government's fingerprints are all over this shoddy state of affairs). (Of course this could explain why the bungled EU negotiations with the US were so inadequate and pusillanimous!) Nor is this idiocy confined to the EU. Those excellent chaps over at Privacy International have been up in arms about the fact that the Japanese Government is pulling the same trick.

Now, don't get me wrong. I fully recognise that there is a legitimate argument in favour of harnessing the power of IT (and especially databases) for the purposes of the greater good - specifically in this instance countering terrorism. I can even recognise that the requirements of national security might necessitate witholding organisational details of any programme set up for such a purpose. But others have said this before me - and far more eloquently. The whole point about fighting 'The War on Terror' (their words, not mine) is to protect our rights and liberties. But the palaver surrounding PNR data is a classic example of those rights and liberties being ridden roughshod over, if not trampled underfoot. The fundamental point is that the underlying policy that gives effect to PNR data programmes has to be subject to public consent. It has to be open to scrutiny and fully transparent and accountable. If it is not, it is utterly draconian and, in terms, permits 'the terrorist' to claim some form of victory. Bluntly, why should we expose ourselves to what amounts to unacceptable risk and inconvenience (in respect of the data about ourselves) without some say, however small, in the matter?

It is not as if the utility of PNR data is a given. As Privacy International point out in their letter to the Japanese Government, belated and limited scrutiny of the US-VISIT programme has revealed that, amongst other things:

• "expenditures continue on projects that 'are not well-defined, planned, or justified on the basis of costs, benefits, and risks';


• "'management controls to identify and evaluate computer and operational problems were insufficient and inconsistently administered';


• "'contracts have not been effectively managed and overseen';


• "security 'weaknesses collectively increase the risk that unauthorized individuals could read, copy, delete, add, and modify sensitive information, including personally identifiable information'; and


• According to the chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Joseph Lieberman, the U.S. government 'is spending $1.7 billion of taxpayer money on a program to detect potential terrorists crossing our borders yet it isn't taking the most basic precautions to keep them from hacking into and changing or deleting sensitive information.'"

Nor in fact is the output of PNR data programmes especially useful. As John Lettice points out - and I've no reason to doubt the figures - "out of 63 million visitors [subject to the US-VISIT programme] the DHS detected a whole 1,200 criminals and immigration violators. It is also thought that one person was detained in connection with terrorism, but it's not known what crime, if any, might have been involved, and what happened." In other words, so far as the primary purpose of the policy (i.e. countering terrorism) is concerned there is a 1 in 63 million chance that the system will throw up what might just, conceivably, be a positive and/or useful result. (As an aside, there is a read-across here to the UK Government's plans for ID cards as the total registrable population will be round about this sort of number. And, as I've blogged previously in the context of the IPS database, this raises the spectre of any PNR database - mark you, it would be pan-European rather than just being confined to the UK- being used as a substitute for the National Identity Register should ID cards be scrapped.) Now, I ask you, dear reader, whether you can discern any sort of proportionality in this sort of outcome?

All in all this sorry mess confirms for me beyond peradventure that I am right to be profoundly distrustful of letting the Government manage or administer my personal information in any way whatsoever. And I can't help feeling that it serves as a stark metaphor for so much that is wrong with the political process in our modern age. If governments are going to be so contemptuous and disdainful of its citizens and their legitimate rights as this sordid saga suggests, is it any wonder that they feel provoked to return the favour? Against the background of this sort of behaviour, purportedly acting in our 'democratic' interest, I say enough is enough and a plague on all your houses!!!

Footnote: A few days prior to the debate, the Admiral, in a written answer, referred to "travel document information" and "other passenger information" (with the acronyms "TDI" and "OPI" respectively) in the context of the UK's e-borders scheme. Now I've no idea whether these are an enitirely ne invention, equivalent to PNR data, or whatever. But it does seem like a classic way of muddying the waters by giving and old (but discredited) 'friend' a new nickname!

DATA SECURITY: GOVT'S TRACK RECORD

Further to my previous post, I've been doing a little research. It would seem that (some of) the various legislative changes to the data protection/security regime that Richard Thomas is currently calling for have in fact already been before Parliament.

Back in March of this year in the House of Lords various amendments were debated in the context of the Serious Crime Bill aiming to strengthen the hand of the ICO vis a vis data protection/security. In fact, on 30th April and again on 9th May Baroness Anelay (now Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords but Home Office spokesman at the time) moved specific amendments (relevant debates available here and here) to ensure that the information commissioner would have the right to carry out assessments of data processing on his own volition. And, on 18th and 25th June respectively, Baroness Noakes (Opposition Treasury spokesman) and Earl Northesk initiated debates (here and here) on a similar provision on the face of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill.

In both cases, the Government rejected the amendments pretty much out-of-hand, although (it being the House of Lords) with some small measure of elegance. No surprise there then! Now, I'm not saying that, had they been accepted, the HMRC fiasco wouldn't have happened - though it might have made it less likely. Rather it is illustrative of the culture of complacency and indifference with which government thinking about and policy development of the needs of data security and protection is infected.

In passing I can't resist a barbed dig at the Lib Dems about this. Rationally this whole issue should be their natural territory but, in parliamentary and legislative terms, they give the impression of being completely unsighted about it. Instead - and happily - the Conservatives are making all the running on it with the 'yellow perils' being merely followers. It does beg the question as to what the Lib Dems are actually for if they can't be bothered to prosecute those matters that should be dearest to their hearts and underlying political philosophy. So, reckoning that the Conservatives in the House of Lords have a bee in their collective bonnets about this, is there a realistic prospect that they might introduce a PMB in the near future?

NO2ID CAMPAIGN

The ever-reliable John Lettice at The Register reports that those excellent folk at NO2ID (website here) are calling in the donations offered as part of its 2005 'refuse' pledge (relevant details here). I urge everyone and anyone to contemplate lending this very worthwhile campaign their support

The NO2ID introductory editorial has it spot on:

"In 2005 a still-popular Labour government was re-elected against an "unelectable" opposition. One manifesto commitment, sold on that occasion as immigration control, was a National Identity Register. Policy makers thought it was a pretty good idea. The public scarcely noticed.

"But when they are summoned to an official interview about who they are and where they live - they'll notice."

And, as they say: "Now the government seems to have started work on the [ID Cards] scheme in earnest" with no doubt the tabling of a welter of statutory instruments to give effect to their plans now imminent.

John Lettice's article makes the wholly valid point that, in respect of these items of secondary legislation:

"... little or no debate takes place, and many of them are barely noticed. "They come before Parliament on a wet Wednesday," says Herbert. "Or they're even tabled over a recess, so that at the end of the recess three men and a dog vote them through" and virtually nobody notices."

That said - and I'm trying to be constructive and helpful here - a very useful and effective vehicle does exist for legitimate objections to be raised in the shape of the "House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments" (homepage here). In fact, in recent times it has been instrumental in giving expression to justified concerns over a wide range of issues arising out of statutory instruments (as with Super Casinos here, HIPS (Home Information Packs) here and here, and the National Children's Database here). In fact, so far as the first of these is concerned, the relevant statutory instrument was debated on the floor of the House (here + subsequent pages), following which the Lords voted the measure down. Corresponding debates (without being taken to a vote) took place on the other two issues (here and here respectively) with all three being informed by the overtly trenchant (to varying degrees) criticisms of the Merits Committee. In effect, while not perfect, its existence does guarantee some degree of scrutiny of these insidious bits of legislation, provided of course appropriate representations are made to it.

So I hope NO2ID are up-to-speed about this and are actively considering using the Committee as a conduit to permit pledgees to make their views known about any nasties that the Government might drop in our laps. I'm sure they are!

(UPPER CRUST) SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH...A FEW THOUGHTS

The recent Times article (here) about Peers' Expenses has provoked a certain amount of comment - not least Wat Tyler over at BOM (available here - scroll down to Item 2).

As the Times says : "[P]eers do not have to submit receipts and an analysis of their expenses shows that nearly two thirds automatically claim the maximum almost every time they visit the Lords." As BOM rightly observes: "this would simply not be tolerated in the real world". And it is inevitable that this sort of 'grabbiness' leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Mind you, so far as I can tell, the practice, distasteful as it may be, is within the rules. And, as the Times infers, peers - unlike MPs - are not in receipt of any form of salary for their parliamentary duties and so claims for expenses are the only available means of defraying any costs associated with attendance. To that extent, the observation that the current expenses system represents "the best compromise possible after the 1999 reforms" is probably fair.

It's worthwhile too trying to put this in some sort of context and, thinking about it, I recalled this article from the BBC in July of 2002 which reveals the (I think staggering) fact that: "Each European MP costs taxpayers nearly £1m a year - that compares with £385,000 for a Westminster MP and £84,000 for a peer." It would be interesting to see where the numbers stack up now and whether the differentials have narrowed at all.

Now, I'm not trying to defend either the practice or the ermine-clad monkeys themselves. Nor am I opening up a debate as to whether the House of Lords represents value for money - that's a much wider issue for a different occasion. What I am saying is that occasionally one has to be careful what you wish for. I think we can be pretty certain that, should HMRC be seen to be sniffing around the issue too much, the old dodderheads would quickly resort to Plan B and demand salaries across the piece in line with Commons practice. And that, dear reader, would escalate the cost of the Red Benches very dramatically!

As I say, it may pong, but it may be an ugly stench that we would be better advised to put up with for now.