Banking it

Baroness Deech 27/01/2012 – 5:18 pm

The solution to the dilemma of the banker’s bonus is obvious.  Mr. Hester should take it, and give it to charity.  That way the contract he seems to have had with RBS is fulfilled; honour is preserved; and the money goes back to the people for good purposes.

The chair of RBS and of the remuneration committee is Sir Philip Hampton. A Sir Philip Hampton was the author of the Hampton Report on Good Regulation in 2005, which recommended principles of best practice, such as accountability and proportionality.  Surely not the same man?

Written at 5:18 pm on 27/01/2012, by Baroness Deech

Topic: |

Comments (18)

The Benefit Cap and Child Support

Baroness Murphy 27/01/2012 – 2:10 pm

No-one who has been reading this blog for a while will be surprised that I voted with the Government on the Benefit Cap last Monday night and also for the Changes to the Child Support Agency on Wednesday. There is however a good case for compromise on the benefit cap in one respect. The cap is the same for the whole of England and Wales, and yet we know that of the 67,000 families or so who are receiving take-home benefits of above £26,000, 54% are in London. Private rents in London are exceptionally high compared with those in most other areas and private landlords can at present sting the State for more or less what they can get. There is an argument for exerting some downward pressure on these landlords. So I hope Ministers will consider “regionalisation” of the welfare cap, at least incorporating a London weighting into the measure. The principle that work should be seen to pay is a good one but there is a case for being a little fairer to these London families, even if it is in the main to provide some transitional relief for landlords.

The vote on the Child Support Agency charges was fascinating. I was one of the very few Crossbenchers who supported the Government but it was clear before the debate that the Government would lose. Why? Well it was fascinating to watch the way the Lords works. Peers had received  briefings funded by Barnardo’s the children’s charity and other children’s charities. Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former Lord Chancellor who moved the amendment  on behalf of Barnardo’s, is a respected and well-loved figure and was convinced that charging for those who could not reach an amicable agreement, mostly women trying to get child maintenance money out of a former partner, would be treated unfairly. The lawyers in the House piled in behind him. Peers had worked themselves up into an emotional righteousness against the new disincentives in the Bill to use the Child Support Agency as a matter of course where parents are separating. I confess that before I looked into the detail of the matter I was going to vote with Lord Mackay too. But then I read the independent reports that have consistently said that over 90% of the 300,000 couples with children who separate every year could make their own arrangements  if encouraged to do so but are using the agency unnecessarily, adding to the severe pressure on the Agency, and the huge cost. A small charge would be a disincentive to using the agency for all except those who need it and help the agency tackle the support needs where one party, usually the man, is reluctant to pay. The Government had obviously had discussions with Lord Mackay and recognised his concerns. The Government therefore tabled its own amendments for discretionary waving of charges. But these amendments came up BEFORE Lord Mackay’s and no-one was really listening, so keen were they to get on with the vote.

Lord de Mauley, the assistant minister/ junior whip, was taking this section rather than Lord Freud; this was unfortunate since the ineffably elegant Eton educated Rupert Ponsonby, 7th Baron de Mauley gives the impression that 1000 years of good breeding may not have prepared him to deal with the issue of welfare benefits. This is actually deeply unfair since he has taken a serious interest in this business and is far more clued up and on the ball about the detail than he may be given credit for. And then three former Social Security ministers weighed in against the changes. But there we are…and the one backbenchTory who spoke for the Government, a recently appointed member, barrister Baroness Berridge, said the right things (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120125-0002.htm#12012551000542) but somehow struck an unfortunate tone which does not emerge from reading Hansard. Like a pack of fox hounds peers had scented the quarry…and there was no stopping them.

The Government will think carefully I am sure about its response but I am pretty sure the Commons will reject these amendments.

 

 

 

Written at 2:10 pm on 27/01/2012, by Baroness Murphy

Topic: , |
Tagged: , |

Comments (37)

Against my Will

Baroness Deech 26/01/2012 – 3:34 pm

The Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill received its first reading on the 12th January.  It is based on a Law Commission Report, Law Com no. 331 (2011) http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/docs/lc331_intestacy_report.pdf which, after consultation, recommended that the law be changed so that cohabitants would have an automatic claim to the property of their partner if he or she died intestate, provided they had lived together for five years or two years if there was a child of the relationship. Under current law, the surviving cohabitant has no automatic claim on the estate of the deceased if he or she has not made a will. But they can bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and the court will consider whether the surviving cohabitant should receive reasonable maintenance from the estate.  In simple language, it is proposed that the surviving cohabitant should have the same claim as a spouse to the estate, and also take all the chattels (personal possessions) of the deceased.  The current law of intestacy is that the spouse will take the first £250,000, and anything above that sum will be divided between the spouse and the children. If the deceased left a spouse but no children, the spouse gets the first £450,000 and the rest will be shared with the deceased’s parents, if still living, and brothers and sisters.  If the deceased left no spouse the estate goes to other relatives.

So the proposal would take the estate away from children and family and divert it to the surviving cohabitant.  At the moment the onus is on the cohabitant to make a claim under the 1975 Act if she has been left nothing; if  the law changed, the onus would be on the family to dispute the entitlement of the cohabitant.  They certainly would do this, in part because the definition of a cohabitant under the Bill is rather vague and leaves lots to dispute over, and also because there may well be resentment on the part of children and family if a “jilly-come-lately” moves in with the old man five years before his death and takes his property.

Of course if the deceased had made a will, he could leave the property as he wishes.  Many more married people make wills than do cohabitants, and it may be that the failure on the part of the latter to do so is precisely because they do not see themselves in that sort of relationship or because they want to preserve what they have for their children from a previous marriage. Of those who responded to the Law Commission consultation, more opposed the change than supported it.  But the Law Commission gave greater weight to the views of the organisations that supported it than the ordinary individuals who opposed it. 

I have blogged about cohabitation before – (Law in Action 23.11.09, Love and Marriage 7.1.11) – pointing out that people know very well what the difference is between marriage and cohabitation and that most people do not want to have the legal effects of marriage thrust upon them when they have chosen to cohabit in order to avoid these. I have received hundreds of letters from the public saying they do not want cohbitation to become marriage. The recent blogs from readers of the Guardian and the Telegraph make the same point.  The law should not force people into a status they do not want.  We condemn forced marriages.  We should also condemn forcing legal status onto two people who have done their best to avoid it.  The Bill would also discriminate against people who live together, but not as spouses, e.g. sisters or lifelong friends.  The surviving cohabitant would presumably get the inheritance tax deferment that spouses get at the moment, but which is denied to sisters living in the same house. 

This Intestacy Bill is a recipe for trouble.  Family disputes will become bitter; older parents will be warned off allowing someone to live in their home and take care of them; there will be no legal aid available for litigation, so the costs will eat up the very assets disputed; and the surviving cohabitant may take all the property away with her to a new relationship without benefiting the children.

Written at 3:34 pm on 26/01/2012, by Baroness Deech

Topic: |

Comments (12)

Declining mail

Lord Norton 26/01/2012 – 10:18 am

Each year, I table a question asking how many items of mail were received in the Palace of Westminster in the previous year.  I have previously written on how the number of letters we receive has declined in recent years.  In 2006, for example, 4,789,935 items of post were received.  In 2010, the figure was 3,082,187.  I have now received the answer for 2011.  The figure is 2,691,576.  (Of this, 25 per cent is estimated to come to the Lords.)  As the number of letters we receive decline, the number of e-mails increase.  I have recently been inundated with e-mails concerning the Welfare Reform Bill, but have not had a single letter on the subject.

Written at 10:18 am on 26/01/2012, by Lord Norton

Topic: |
Tagged: |

Comments (8)

Government defeats

Lord Norton 26/01/2012 – 10:05 am

The Government has suffered two defeats this week on the Welfare Reform Bill, both attracting considerable media attention.  The fact of defeat is, as I have previously noted, not particularly unusual.   These two defeats, though, are noteworthy, the first for the fact that it was Liberal Democrat votes that accounted for it.  The Government is usually in trouble when there is large turnout of cross-benchers and they divide disproportionately against Government.  As you will see, this did not happen on this occasion.  The second defeat is notable for its scale (270 votes to 128), the largest defeat so far in the session, as a result of all parts of the House coming together to support the amendment.

The vote on Monday on the amendment moved by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (to exclude those in recepit of child benefit from the cap) was:

For the amendment:  Bishops 5, Crossbench 37, Labour 175, Liberal Democrat 26, Other 9  [Total: 252]

Against the amendment:  Conservative 152, Crossbench 41, Liberal Democrat 39, Other 5 [Total: 237]

In yesterday’s vote on the amendment moved by Conservative former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to remove parents from being subject to fees by the Child Support Agency if they have taken reasonable steps to establish if it is possible to make a maintenance agreement, the voting figures were:

For the amendment: Bishops 1, Conservative 34, Crossbench 57, Labour 155, Liberal Democrats 16, Other 7 [Total: 270]

Against the amendment: Conservative 97, Crossbench 1, Liberal Democrats 30 [Total: 128]

Written at 10:05 am on 26/01/2012, by Lord Norton

Topic: |
Tagged: , |

Comments (5)