Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, apologises for not being able to be here today. She has asked me to say a few words on behalf of our group. We very much welcome that noble Lords have agreed with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We hope that it will enable MPs in the other place to think again about the need to protect pensioners from the worsening economic circumstances. In the time since the Bill’s passage through the other place, significant changes have taken place, with economic indicators leaving little doubt that pressures will grow in the months ahead. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly welcome the cross-party working made possible by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Sherlock. We have much appreciated the Minister’s helpful approach. We thank her for her openness and willingness to share information on the Bill. We extend sincere thanks and appreciation to the Bill team, who have provided us with expert professional advice at all stages.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team for all their work, and for the courtesy they have shown in meeting us many times to listen to the concerns we have expressed. I too am extremely grateful for the work across the House that was encompassed by this Bill. It has shown the House of Lords at its best. This is an issue of significant social importance where this House has shown that it believes that the other place took a decision based, perhaps, on incorrect information and has asked it to reconsider. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Janke, my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and others including the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Davies and Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for their hard work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has said, I hope the Government will find a way to retain this amendment in the Bill and uprate state pensions by more than the 3.1%, which is clearly inadequate to protect against cost of living increases.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the previous speakers. I hope that the Government will act on the recommendations of this House. I am also grateful to the Minister for the impact analysis, which I received on Friday night. I should be grateful if in future we could have a better quality of data. For example, it refers to weekly mean benefits, which do not tell us much about the societal impact or distribution. It would be very helpful, for example, to know the median figure and to have some further analysis in the appropriate financial brackets. Table 4 refers to the number of people eligible, pre-2016, for the new state pension but does not tell us how many actually receive the full amount. Once again, could I please request a fuller analysis, which would not only provide greater transparency but enable us to call the Government to account? It could be in the form of a statement of the number of individuals receiving, for example, a pension of less than £100 per week, those receiving between £100 and £120, and so on in other brackets. A better quality of analysis would enrich the debate.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “(1)” and insert “(1)(za) to (c)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to limit the application of the Bill so that it does not apply to the uprating of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, thereby ensuring the poorest pensioners are still protected against rising earnings. It is linked with the new Clause in the name of Baroness Altmann.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 1 and 7 in my name and those of cross-party Peers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain—to whom I am extremely grateful for their support, and also to support Amendment 5. I declare my interest as set out in the register, and I am honoured to speak in this debate in your Lordships’ House. This Bill will affect every pensioner in the UK, but in speaking to Amendments 1 and 7, I am focusing on what sometimes seems like an underclass in British society: the poorest pensioners. Amendment 1 seeks to exclude from this Bill the application of its measures to the pension credit minimum income guarantee. This is what the poorest pensioners in our land rely upon. It is a means-tested benefit, and it is not a king’s ransom. We are talking about £177.10 a week.

Pensioner poverty was already rising even before the pandemic. It is a myth that pensioners are all well off. The charity Independent Age, and figures from Age UK, show that pensioner poverty remains a significant social issue, too often skirted over by commentators. Already, more than half of single pensioners, mostly women, live in fuel poverty, while 13% of older households live in extreme fuel poverty. Those numbers will undoubtedly grow if the Bill is passed without amendment, especially as rising energy costs are hitting so many with massive increases in their bills. Official figures show that one-quarter of pensioners were in poverty in 2002, when pension credit was introduced. That proportion fell significantly thereafter, reaching a low of around 13%, but it has been rising in recent years to 16% in 2018 and 18% in 2019, even before the impact of the pandemic and the measures we are debating today.

Pension credit has never been covered by the triple lock. It has always had only earnings uprating in legislation. The Bill removes that as well. Pension credit has helped alleviate pensioner poverty, but the benefits are being unwound. Partly, this is because the take-up of pension credit has been stuck at a very low level. Forty percent of those entitled are generally too proud to claim, and try to make ends meet without having to go through a means-tested claim. But the Bill sweeps away vital earnings protection, replacing it with just a 3.1% figure, which reflects the consumer prices index that was reported for September this year, and which is actually an artificially low figure. The Budget confirmed that inflation is rising, with 4%-plus expected and the Chancellor warning of higher figures. The OBR suggests that inflation is likely to rise to 4.4% and could be significantly higher.

Amendment 1 will exclude the pension credit from the Bill and retain its earnings protection. I am not planning to divide the House on this amendment, but I may return to this issue on Amendment 7 if Amendments 3 and 4 are not accepted. Amendment 7 permits the Government to adjust the measure of earnings used to uprate the pension credit to allow for what I certainly agree, and I think most commentators would as well, are the exceptional factors that distorted the number released for average weekly earnings, which was the traditional figure used of 8.1%.

This measure is the biggest spending reduction or cost saving in the Budget. The Treasury will save £5.4 billion in 2022-23, £5.8 billion the year after, £6.1 billion the year after that, and so on. This is money that is being taken away from pensioners. Too often, Chancellors have eyed state pensions or pensioners as a tempting target to raid when they need to find large sums of money. This is about large numbers of people, but for each person, we are not talking about large sums.

However, this should not be about money. It is about people and the social welfare system. It is about trust in politicians and in our social welfare system as a whole. It is about millions of people who are often out of sight but struggling in 21st century Britain on the lowest state pension in the developed world. The pension credit level, which is lower than the new state pension, has not yet recovered to the level that the basic state pension sat at in 1979, when the earnings link was first removed. That started the whittling away of pensioner incomes and the rise in pensioner poverty.

What does it say about our country if the elderly are used to help fund Budget reductions in alcohol duty and bank taxation? Amendment 1 is about important protections for the poorest pensioners. I will return with more details on a wider level with Amendment 3, which deals with the breaking of a manifesto commitment. I also urge noble Lords to listen to this debate and to think very carefully about what this House is for. The other place dealt with these issues in two and a half hours, with very little debate. It was presented as a fait accompli. In truth, the other place was slightly misled. On 20 September, when this Bill was placed before them, MPs were given this assurance:

“This Bill will ensure that a temporary statistical anomaly in wages does not unfairly track across into pensions, while also preserving the spending power of pensioners and protecting them from increases in the cost of living.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/9/21; col. 62.]


Perhaps that was almost believable in September, but since then, with the sharp rises in the costs of essentials and the statements in the Budget which confirm that 3.1% CPI is an exceptionally low figure, it is no longer an appropriate basis on which to vote this through.

There is also an argument being used that the Government cannot use the earnings figure of around 8% because it is too high and is distorted by the pandemic. Apparently, there is no robustly agreed methodology to adjust that figure for the pandemic. It strains credulity that, with the legions of statisticians and actuaries at the Government’s disposal, it is not possible to produce a reliable, adjusted figure that accounts for the pandemic. However, if that is indeed the case, the OBR and the ONS helpfully have produced their own statistics which could perhaps be used as the basis of such a re-estimation of average earnings.

Amendment 7 explicitly permits the Government to use an adjusted figure for 2022-23. It is put in place to meet the objections that apparently there was concern that the Government could be legally challenged should they use an adjusted figure. This measure in Amendment 7 would ensure that unless a figure was used that is entirely irrational, such a judicial review is unlikely to proceed.

I hope that we will have a good debate on these measures and can send them back to the other place for reconsideration on the basis of much fuller and more accurate information. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Janke and Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for their amendments. These amendments aim to ensure that the standard minimum guarantee is uprated by earnings rather than by CPI inflation. In order to address the Government’s concern that this would entail an increase of 8.3%, they would instead require the Secretary of State to review the rate by reference to a rate of earnings growth, adjusted to take account of the distorting impacts of the pandemic.

As I said in Committee, the Government recognise that the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit is the safety net for pensioners on the lowest incomes. I therefore also understand the concern that the incomes of pensioners in this group should continue to be supported. As has been said, the standard minimum guarantee has always been linked to earnings, originally as a non-legislative commitment and, since 2008, by law. However, it is still the Government’s view that there is no alternative earnings measure upon which uprating can be based that is sufficiently robust. If there were, there would be no reason not to apply it to all the earnings-linked pensions and benefits. There is no adjusted measure of earnings growth that has the status of an official statistic. Instead, the ONS has published a range of possible estimates, which it advises should be treated with caution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has suggested that the Government could adopt 5% as a reliable measure of earnings growth. This is the increase in average earnings in 2021 compared to 2020, as forecast by the OBR in its economic and fiscal report. There are two issues with this measure. First, the ONS has, to date, published data only up to August 2021, so the 5% is partially based on forecast earnings for the period September to December; and forecast data, as opposed to historical data, is inherently uncertain and liable to change. Secondly, if we were to take this approach, we would also be changing the reference period for the review from May to July, year-on-year, to the calendar year. This would mean that, for next year’s review, if we reverted to using earnings growth for the year to the period May to July 2022, as we would already have accounted for May to December 2021 in the April 2022 uprating, we would be double counting. To avoid this would mean using a calendar-year measure, partially based on a forecast beyond the current review.

However, the measures that the Government took last year, together with those in this Bill, will ensure that the safety net for pensioners on the lowest incomes more than keeps pace with inflation. Over the two years of the pandemic, it will have increased by more than the increase in prices. It was increased by 1.9% in April 2021, when the CPI for the relevant uprating review period was 0.5%, and it will be increased by 3.1% from April 2022, in line with the relevant rate of the CPI this year. We believe that this strikes a fair balance over the two years between the interests of pensioners and those of younger taxpayers.

On the relationship between the full rate of the new state pension and the single rate of the standard minimum guarantee, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised in Committee, the Government believe it is right that the contributory state pension should deliver a foundation income above the level of the basic means test. This is not only so that future pensioners know that they will see the full benefit from any additional retirement saving but because, unlike pension credit, there is not the problem of take-up, which, despite the efforts of Governments of all persuasions, has persisted over time and is unlikely ever to match that of the state pension.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also made the point that, at other times, the Government have applied cash increases to the standard minimum guarantee which exceeded the statutory minimum earnings. This Bill gives the Secretary of State the same flexibility to go beyond the minimum—in this case, CPI. The “overindexation” of the standard minimum guarantee on earlier occasions was done solely to ensure that those on pension credit did not have the triple lock increase on their state pension clawed back in the means test. That is not the position we are in this year. As we have made clear, this Bill is for one tax year only. After that, the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit will continue to increase at least in line with earnings from 2023-24.

Several noble Lords referred to pension credit take-up, I have written on this to outline the action we are taking with partners and stakeholders to address this very important issue. We are particularly concerned to ensure that people are aware of the guarantee credit, which is the safety net in the pension system and our most crucial lever for bearing down on poverty levels among today’s pensioners.

Of course, pension credit is a gateway to other valuable entitlements for pensioners on low incomes, such as discounts on energy bills, cold weather payments and free TV licences for those over 75. We can make much of these advantages by encouraging people to claim what they are entitled to.

On Amendment 5, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Janke, for raising these important issues. I share their concerns about pensioner poverty and about older women in poverty. I assure the House that we are committed to ensuring economic security at every stage of people’s lives, including when they reach retirement.

However, I have to inform the noble Baronesses that their amendment, as it stands, is inoperable. As the Bill takes effect only from April 2022, the data required for a review six months after the Bill’s passing will not be available. In the absence of actual data, the only way to provide an assessment would be to forecast and model how many pensioners might have their income lifted above the various low-income levels under an earnings uprating versus an inflation uprating. Assumptions would need to be made about how an individual pensioner’s income would change in the future under each scenario. This would require making assumptions about, for example, how each pensioner might change their behaviour around other sources of income, such as drawdown of income from investments or a change in earnings when faced with different amounts of state pension, which is virtually impossible to do with accuracy. These projected incomes would then need to be compared to projections of the various income thresholds, which are themselves extremely uncertain. Therefore, there is a very high risk that any analysis seeking to forecast the number of pensioners moving above or below these projected poverty thresholds would be misleading due to uncertainty about the economy and pensioners’ behavioural responses to various levels of state pension.

The department collects and publishes a wide range of data on income and poverty, which are released annually in the households below average income report series. Reports with estimates of pensioner poverty covering 2021-22 and 2022-23 will be published in 2023 and 2024 respectively.

I can, however, announce today that we will publish the impact assessment for the Bill. This sets out information such as key characteristics of state pension and pension credit recipients and impact on protected groups. The Government have been convinced by the arguments made by noble Lords that this document should be made available. I congratulate the noble Baronesses and other noble Peers on their successful persistence in raising the issue. We are now in a position to provide the document in a version that incorporates the measures outlined in last week’s Budget. I will write to noble Peers after this debate with a copy of the document, which we will also place in the Libraries of both Houses.

My noble friend Lady Altmann raised the issue of CPI figures. September CPI was 3.1%; the OBR is forecasting CPI to rise and peak at 4.4% in quarter 2 next year. However, from April to August this year, CPI averaged 2.3%, so the September figure of 3.1% is halfway between the forecast peak and what CPI actually was for the first five months of this financial year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, spoke about food, fuel and housing costs. Although we are expecting inflation to rise—and clearly a substantial part of this rise will be driven by the temporary rises in fuel costs —it is important to note the facts about what has actually happened to inflation over the last 12 months. Average CPI over the last 12 months has been 1.3%, but food prices actually fell by 0.6% and household fuels increased by only 0.1%. The biggest rises were in transport, at 3.9%, and communication, at 2.4%.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, challenged why we use absolute poverty measures. This Government prefers to look at absolute poverty over relative poverty, as relative poverty can provide counterintuitive results. Relative poverty is likely to fall during recessions, due to falling median incomes. Under this measure, poverty can decrease even if people are getting poorer. For example, some think tanks have projected that relative poverty will have fallen sharply in 2020-21 during the pandemic. The absolute poverty line is fixed in real terms, so will only ever worsen if people get poorer and only ever improve if people are getting richer.

My noble friends Lord Freud and Lady Stroud talked about the changes to universal credit, which are more than welcome. I thank my noble friends for their interventions on universal credit and I am sure that their points—and others—will have been heard clearly. In view of my remarks today, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response and all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for the way in which she introduced her amendment, and I support Amendment 5 in her name and those of other colleagues.

I would like to put on record that I did not mention any figure in my remarks. That was deliberate: it is not up to me to tell the Government what figure to use to uprate. Is my noble friend saying that the Government are unable to produce an adjusted earnings measure that is rational? A judicial review would have to be based on a figure being irrational. I am sure that my noble friend is deeply uncomfortable about this debate, and I have huge sympathy for her: I know that she cares about the poorest pensioners, as she cares about so many others in our society. But I am really disappointed in the Government’s response and the rationale that they are using.

I will withdraw Amendment 1, but I might return on Amendment 7 in my name. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and, again, thank my noble friend for her response and all other noble Lords for their supportive remarks.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, my apologies: I was too slow to leap up. I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for introducing his Motion and thank all noble Lords who have spoken. As I said in Committee, I think we all share an underlying concern, which is about the living conditions of pensioners—particularly poorer pensioners—in our society. I will not rehearse our debates on pensioner poverty, but I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for opening up the question of a strategic approach to the state pension.

The assumption had been that the state pension, old or new, was the basis, or the foundation, of developing retirement income and that any private provision would be on top. Given that we have rising levels of pensioner poverty now, and looking across the landscape of current saving rates on auto-enrolment, are the Government confident that this strategy is working and that people will have adequate income in retirement on the basis of the figures that she is seeing? I should be interested to hear her response to that.

My noble friend Lord Sikka again mentioned the question of people who are struggling. We are very anxious about the cost of living facing pensioners in the difficult months ahead, which is why I very much hope that the Government are tackling pensioner poverty in the ways that we have discussed.

Taking my noble friend Lord Davies at his word, he did not in fact raise this with the intention of pressing the Government for 8.1% now but to raise the broader questions. I hope the Minister will take him on that basis and give him a response that will help to answer the kind of questions he has raised.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I apologise for being even slower to rise. I will not detain the House long. I would just like to echo and support the calls for a wider review of state pensioner support. That is long overdue. Perhaps this debate will produce a willingness at the department to look again at all the elements of the way we support pensioners in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from the first “of” to end of line 8 and insert “earnings obtaining in Great Britain, as adjusted to take account of the exceptional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of earnings.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to maintain the link between pension uprating and earnings but requires the Secretary of State to make adjustments that are considered appropriate for distortions in the traditional ONS Average Weekly Earnings figures, which were caused by the exceptional pandemic effects and Government measures on the labour market.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 and give notice that I intend to divide the House on this amendment. I am enormously grateful for the support of colleagues across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I am, of course, grateful to my noble friend and the officials who have engaged with us over the past weeks on this Bill. However, I still believe that these amendments are necessary. Amendment 3 would retain the earnings link uprating for the state pension triple lock rather than removing it as the Bill proposes.

I appeal to noble Lords on these Benches, as well as across the House, to recognise that these amendments are seeking to protect a solemn manifesto commitment made at the 2019 general election. Amendment 3 would preserve the important social security principle and the triple-lock promise of protection for the basic and new state pensions against rises in average earnings. Amendment 4 is consequential on Amendment 3. It was accepted by the Whips yesterday but, if the Minister does not agree, I ask her to confirm that and explain why she might not accept it when she responds. It would permit the Secretary of State to adjust the traditional average weekly earnings statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics, which have been used for uprating in past years, for the effect of the pandemic, which has upwardly biased the figures.

This Bill was perhaps not necessary. In the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which we are being asked to revise through the Bill, Section 150A (8) explicitly allows the earnings statistics to be adjusted. The legislation states that when reviewing how to uprate the state pension each year:

“the Secretary of State shall estimate the general level of earnings in such manner as he thinks fit.”

So this is not a question of having to use the 8.3% earnings statistic.

When Members of the other place voted on this Bill to abandon the manifesto pledge to 12 million citizens, they did so on three bases which I believe are flawed. First, they were led to believe that no alternative was available to using the 8.3% figure but, as I have just demonstrated, the Act would permit that in any case. However, to be helpful, we have laid Amendment 4, which explicitly states that, for the year 2022-23, should the Government believe that the earnings figures are distorted, they may adjust for the effect of the pandemic.

The second basis was that the other place was told that the 3.1% figure would still protect against rises in the cost of living. Indeed, when summing up, the Minister said that the so-called double lock of CPI or 2.5%

“will ensure that pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from the higher cost of living”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/21; col. 86.]

This also does not stand up to scrutiny. Since that debate, the inflation outlook has significantly deteriorated, but on further examination it is clear that September’s 3.1% CPI figure was downwardly biased by the effects of the pandemic. For example, there was a sharp fall in hotel and restaurant costs, as well as in household services, which hardly form a major part of most pensioners’ budgets. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that inflation in September was 3.1% but is likely to rise further. The OBR said:

“We expect CPI inflation to reach 4.4 per cent next year”


warned that it could peak at close to 5% and added that

“it could hit the highest rate seen in the UK for three decades.”

That is around 7.5%. Last month, gas and electricity bills rose by 12%. Food prices are rising, and the OBR warns of a further rise in the energy price cap next April. Yes, this is for one year only, but what a year to choose to do this, while older people are facing a cost-of-living crisis and the protection that they were relying on is being removed.

The third basis was that not doing this would cost £5 billion per year and that earnings fell last year, but pensioners received a 2.5% rise, so they will have money taken from them next year as some kind of payback. Using an adjusted figure would still save several billion pounds relative to the £5 billion cost. But after seeing alcohol and fuel duty cut in the Budget and the bank surcharge allowance raised, and adding up the amount of Exchequer savings that those measures entail, half the cost of not honouring the triple lock will cover the costs of just those three measures. I appeal to noble Lords across the House: is this really the country that we believe that we should be living in? Is that the priority for public spending?

This is also a perfect example of our role. If we are scrutinising legislation that has come over to our House and which we believe that it is flawed, that it was perhaps passed through on a false premise, or if circumstances require us to send it back for reconsideration, is that not precisely what we should be doing? Twelve million citizens depended on that commitment. We have a chance to ask the other place to reconsider, perhaps in the light of updated information. I hope that noble Lords across the House can support this.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, as no one else is getting up, I will. I support Amendments 3 and 4 and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on her tenacity in pressing this issue.

I have made it clear at each stage of the Bill that, while questioning the rationale for the triple lock, I strongly support the double lock that links pensions to earnings or prices as crucial to maintaining or hopefully even improving pensioners’ living standards. If under the triple lock it is possible to raise pensions by the arbitrary figure of 2.5% in some years, I do not understand why what is proposed in the amendments is deemed to be not sufficiently robust by the Government. I have yet to hear a convincing response to the very strong case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, nor have I received any letter from the Minister today. I have just checked my phone, and nothing has come through.

If, despite assurances to the contrary, and when an alternative that did not use the 8% figure was clearly available, there was a jettisoning of any earnings link, it is not surprising that this has given rise to fears that the link could be scrapped at some future point, just as it was in 1980. As has already been pointed out, the case for maintaining some form of earnings link, in line with the amendment, is all the stronger given the anticipated increase in inflation. Many people on low incomes—pensioners and others—face a bleak winter, especially if inflation rises as high as 5%, as predicted by the Bank of England’s chief economist recently—and that is before taking account of the differential impact of inflation on those on low incomes, for whom fuel and food represent a disproportionate proportion of their budget, as noted already. They will struggle during the winter months without any additional help with fuel, as called for by National Energy Action, and when they finally get their uprating next April, it will not be enough to compensate. While it is very welcome that the Government have finally agreed to produce an impact assessment of the Bill, it is a shame that we have not got it to inform our debate today.

Echoing what I said in the first group of amendments, I hope that, despite what she said earlier, when responding to these amendments, the Minister will not once again trot out the statistics based on the so-called absolute measure of poverty, when she knows full well that pensioner poverty, on the relative measure, is on the rise over a longish time period. Rather than avoid the issue of pensioner poverty, as it is experienced relative to the rest of society, the Government should be working to prevent a further increase. This amendment provides them with a means of doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Janke and Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for their amendment. The Government’s reasons for not adopting an altered measure of earnings have not changed. That includes the unacceptable level of risk that would be attached to changing the definition of earnings using the current legislation. I remind your Lordships again that the cost of failing to secure Royal Assent to this Bill by mid-November would be in the range of £4 billion to £5 billion.

I very much understand my noble friend Lady Altmann’s concern about a temporary suspension of the earnings link, for all the reasons she and others have so eloquently outlined. But the fact remains that the figures quoted from the Office for National Statistics have no official status and have been taken from a blog that the ONS published, alongside the usual earnings statistics, first in July this year and then in subsequent months.

The key reason why the Government cannot accept this amendment is that the ONS figures are just not robust enough to form the basis for an uprating decision. This is best demonstrated by two quotes from the ONS:

“The blog explains that there are a number of ways you can try to strip out these base effects, but there is no single method everyone would agree on. We have tried a couple of simple approaches. Neither approach is perfect … Our calculations of an underlying rate are there to help users understand base and compositional effects, but there remains a lot of uncertainty about how best to control for these effects, so they need to be treated with caution.”


Using a range of possible estimates based on a method that cannot be agreed on does not provide a sufficiently robust basis for making critical decisions about billions of pounds-worth of expenditure.

A further point is that the ONS has calculated its range of adjusted underlying earnings growth for a measure of regular pay. The usual measure of earnings used for uprating is total pay, which is regular pay plus bonuses, because this gives a more complete picture of earnings, as bonuses can play an important part in earnings. There are no such problems with CPI inflation, which is a robust national statistic and provides a clear and sound basis for this year’s uprating, with no need for any complex adjustments.

I must remind the House that this Bill is for one year only. From 2023-24, the legislation will revert to the existing requirement to uprate by at least earnings growth, and the Government’s triple lock manifesto commitment remains in place.

Finally, I point out that, if a percentage of 3.1% or more is applied in 2022-23 to the current rate of the basic state pension, this would mean that the full yearly rate will have increased since 2010 by £570 more than if it had been uprated by prices; that is over £2,300 pounds more in cash terms. In addition, people over state pension age are entitled to free winter fuel payments worth £2 billion every year, free eye tests and NHS prescriptions worth around £900 million every year, and free bus passes worth £1 billion every year.

My noble friend Lady Altmann talked about the cost-of-living crisis in relation to energy and inflation. Ofgem’s energy price cap has protected consumers from the recent fluctuations in wholesale gas prices. Millions of low-income households will be supported with the cost of essentials through the £500 million household support fund. This builds on the £140 warm homes discount, which helps 2.2 million low-income households with their energy costs, and the winter fuel payment, which provides £200 toward energy bills for households with a member at or above state pension age and £300 for households with a member at or above 80 years old.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about not receiving a letter. I am assured that the letters have gone out. If, by the end of this debate, she still has not received one, I hope she will let me know and I will make sure this is rectified. I say the same to everybody in the House: I am sure that those letters have been sent. In the light of my remarks, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that this is a matter of principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft talked about inflation pressures, which have risen significantly, making 3.1% clearly a real-terms cut in the state pension. The noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Lister, talked about the historic precedent of removing the earnings link and the danger of setting that precedent to the rise in pensioner poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke about lack of trust. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, talked about poverty, particularly for older women, and the impact in Northern Ireland.

The response to this is that we would be running an unacceptable level of risk in producing adjusted figures. The Minister is being asked to tell the House that there is no method that everyone could agree on; that no method is perfect, and therefore we will not do anything at all. That is not required for us to send this legislation back or to avert a legal challenge. Indeed, Amendment 4 explicitly tries to deal with that.

The state pension will always be a call on younger taxpayers and, with an aging population, it will always be a tempting target to raid. But the state pension is the basis of the majority of pensioners’ income in retirement, and it is part of the social contract in our welfare state, on which our society is based. It underpins the national insurance system. If we break that contract, even supposedly for just one year, I believe it will be setting a seriously dangerous precedent. Pensioners are not a cash machine for Chancellors to take money from when wanting to fund other projects or tax cuts elsewhere, especially not in the eye of a cost-of-living storm. I apologise to my noble friend, but I do not accept the responses that she has been asked to give us. I therefore want to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) to (e) and insert “in subsection (2), at the end there were inserted “in the light of reasonable adjustments to take account of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic based on the Office for National Statistics reported earnings figure.””
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment at page 1, line 7.

Environment Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak on my own behalf now. First, I am absolutely horrified at the abuse that the Minister has received. I do not know about the practices in this House, but the other Member should be disgusted at his behaviour. I have not seen it all. I would check up, but he has blocked me. I think I offered a tiny amount of criticism once and he blocked me. The first person to block me was President Trump—so, you know.

The amendment from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, is absolutely necessary. We have seen a vast public outcry over this. The whole point was that the Government swept aside our amendment without really understanding just how much the public cared. That was a huge mistake on their part and I hope that they now go all the way to meeting the noble Duke. He has in fact amended the amendment slightly, making it much more reasonable.

Quite honestly, if any Conservative Members at the other end vote against this again, they will have to explain themselves. I thank Feargal Sharkey, the punk star, and Professor Jamie Woodward, who have given me huge amounts of information. I do not believe in abuse on social media, but if I see Tories being virtuous on this subject, I will highlight what is happening in their constituencies.

If we are going to fix the sewage discharges, we can also fix the discharges of plastic and microplastics. Apparently, we could do this all together. That is something we clearly have to do.

I was absolutely horrified by Conservative Central Office, which put out all that nonsense about how much this was going to cost. If the Minister wants to correct the record on that, I would be absolutely delighted, but I understand if he does not have the figures to hand. The issue of cost was not raised at the other end, because I am sure the Ministers did not want to mislead Parliament. Perhaps the Conservative Party’s office might just draw in its fangs occasionally and start to tell the truth.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on his determination and persistence on this issue. Equally, I thank my noble friend the Minister, my honourable friend Rebecca Pow and the officials who have engaged so sincerely and robustly with us in exploring ways forward.

I am grateful for the progress we have made so far. However, before the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, laid amendments to this Bill, the Government seemed reluctant to place an actual duty on companies. I am hopeful that we can be extremely proud of the changes that we in this House have made in bringing this issue to the forefront of public opinion and prompting action from the Government.

I too express my abhorrence for any vitriol levelled against honourable Members in the other place. Have we not learned in recent weeks the dangers of that type of discourse and personal abuse? I implore noble Lords and those who may still have significant concerns about this Bill to accept that the progress we have made has been made in good faith by Ministers and officials who sincerely wish to make this a landmark piece of legislation—I believe it will be—and are committed to the environmental causes that are so important to so many of us.

Without the duty that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, proposes, it is entirely possible that little or nothing would happen. That is not safe for public health. I declare my interests as in the register. I recognise the importance of private water utilities to many pension funds and institutional portfolios, which rely on their generous dividends. I have no interest in seeing these companies pushed into bankruptcy or public ownership, but I believe they have neglected their sewage overflow problems for years. They have failed to invest sufficiently to limit the problem and have even played fast and loose with the requirements to report overflows and allowed many illegal discharges. It is time to legislate to force them to spend significant sums to make up for past underspending and egregious behaviour, rather than relying on further promises which leave us with horribly polluted waters.

As the Rivers Trust said—I commend it on its work—more than half of Britain’s rivers are in poor ecological condition due to sewage discharges. This amendment does not call for the immediate elimination of sewage discharges but for ongoing reductions. Clearly, this will take time, but a new duty is so important as we have not really even started.

I noticed this afternoon that the Government have just announced and released on the Defra website plans to further strengthen the Bill with their own amendment to be enshrined in law, which I am led to believe will ensure that water companies have a duty to progressively reduce the adverse impact of sewage discharges from storm overflows. I sincerely hope that that is the case. For that to happen we will need to pass this amendment in this House tonight. I also congratulate my right honourable friend Philip Dunne and my honourable friend Richard Graham and others in the other place who have been working so hard behind the scenes to ensure that we move to a much better place on this amendment.

I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in this important amendment, and I hope and believe that the Minister and the Government will take us to the right place very soon.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, in view of the Minister’s remarks, I should intervene briefly. The noble Baroness just made the crucial point that there appears to have been a major change of government policy. Let us not delude ourselves: that is because of the strength of parliamentary and public opinion. We have been doing our job in making it clear that the disgraceful situation which my noble friend Lord West, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others have referred to, should not continue.

The Minister was so busy criticising me that he did not say explicitly that he is accepting the amendment in the name of the noble Duke. Are the Government accepting it? I see that the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Is it the case that they are not accepting the amendment? So we will have to vote. That is quite a significant point. The Government are still not in a situation where they are clearly accepting what the noble Duke said. The Government could, procedurally, accept the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, it would go back, and they could then move a further amendment.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from “if” to end of line 8 and insert “the Secretary of State had determined that the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain had increased by 3.8%.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the provision substituting “prices” for “earnings” and retains the earnings link for the 2022-23 year by stipulating the Government will assume earnings have risen by 3.8% for the purposes of uprating. This reflects analysis from an ONS blog suggesting that the underlying rate of earnings growth was between 3.2% and 4.4%. The figure of 3.8% is chosen as the mid-way point in that range.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1, 2 and 3. I have to say to my noble friend that I truly believe that the legislation already allows for the provisions that we are trying to enshrine in this Bill. I actually do not believe that the Bill is necessary. It was passed through the other House on the basis of a false premise: that keeping the triple-lock earnings protection would require a pension uprating of more than 8%, at an Exchequer cost of around £5 billion.

However, we are amending Section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and Section 150A(8) specifically states that

“the Secretary of State shall estimate the general level of earnings in such manner as he thinks fit.”

Given that we are supposed to be uprating benefits that are vital to the living standards of millions of pensioners —I am particularly concerned about the poorest pensioners, who are dealt with by Amendment 3—it is regrettable that the Secretary of State and the Government have chosen not to use the option in the Bill allowing them to estimate a level of earnings that would have allowed for what I think all noble Lords would agree is an exceptional impact from the measures taken in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic. That event is pretty unprecedented but could be allowed for when talking about uprating benefits that so many millions of our citizens rely wholly—or almost wholly—upon to be able to afford to live.

In my attempts to persuade and impress upon the Government that it is not too late to retain the triple-lock earnings link, I have tried to suggest ways in which we can still do this in the Bill, and I am most grateful to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, who has supported me on Amendment 1. I stress that these are all probing amendments, but this one tries to help the Government by suggesting a level that could be used to reflect an actual level of earnings increase across the economy which is adjusted—in a way that has already been explained by the ONS in a recent publication—for the distortions relating to earnings figures in the normal measure, which has always been average weekly earnings.

The ONS analysis, which looked at the base effects and the composition effect, suggested that actual earnings growth was not more than 8% but was between 3.2% and 4.4%. I have just picked a number at the middle of the range: 3.8% is a figure that could be inserted into the Bill. The Secretary of State is at liberty to choose an alternative figure that she feels—perhaps with the advice of her officials and all the excellent analysts that the department has—would better reflect the actual number, but that itself would still preserve the earnings link that is so important, as we discussed at Second Reading. So, that is Amendment 1, which specifies that the general level of earnings obtaining would be 3.8% for the purposes of just this one year, which is what we are trying to do.

Amendment 2 is truly cross-party: I am hugely grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith, Lady Drake and Lady Wheatcroft. Again, this amendment intends to maintain the link between pension uprating and earnings while still explicitly accounting for the problem that, I believe, the Government have been advised to beware of, which is that not using average weekly earnings and not changing primary legislation to permit not using average weekly earnings could open the Government to challenge. I stress that I am also hugely grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who has engaged so constructively with noble Lords across the House, and to her officials, who have been very patient and generous with their time in going through these issues with those of us who feel so concerned about the social-policy and pensioner-poverty implications of potentially setting a dangerous precedent that, actually, increasing by earnings does not necessarily need to happen if the Government do not like the figure one year.

Amendment 2 aims to enshrine in the Bill a provision that says that, for this year only, those benefits—the basic state pension, the new state pension, pension credit, the minimum guarantee and the other smaller pensions, such as category B, category D and so on—need to rise in line with earnings, but that that level of earnings can be adjusted in light of

“the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of earnings for the previous year”.

That, again, would open the way for the Government to maintain the earnings link and use an adjusted figure, while addressing the potential concern about being challenged if primary legislation is not changed.

At the moment, the decision seems to have been taken that, if average weekly earnings—the specific statistic produced by the ONS, which has always been used in the past—are not used, the only alternative is to drop the earnings link altogether. These amendments are designed to show that that is not the only alternative. Even though, within the legislation, it is okay to use a figure that the Secretary of State adjusts as she sees fit, this would explicitly state that.

I am puzzled that the officials still seem to think that this could be open to challenge. Very few people would disagree with the idea that average weekly earnings statistics, as reported in the 8%-plus range, were not distorted in some way and that it is not acceptable to adjust them in any way. Indeed, in the figures that have come out for average weekly earnings, the three months that were compared with three months from last year—April, May and June—were all at around 8.8%, but the more recent July and August figures, which have already come out, were significantly below that. They have come down to around 5% or below, so there is an element of MPs having made a decision without recognising that there are alternatives. I propose that we suggest to the other place that there is an alternative that allows retention of the manifesto commitment to maintain the triple lock and, more importantly, of the earnings link.

Finally and briefly, on Amendment 3, I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Wheatcroft. This amendment is specifically aimed at the poorest pensioners—those who rely on pension credit. This credit has never been triple locked, so they have never benefited from that protection directly, although there has been a cash-terms increase to keep the pension credit a little more in line with the new state pension. Since its introduction nearly 20 years ago, it has always had to be linked to the level of average earnings. Suddenly, for one year, because of the pandemic, we are removing that protection even from the poorest pensioners. Typically, they are the oldest pensioners. The majority of them will be women who are not living on very much money; we are talking about £177.50, or thereabouts, a week, as the single pension-credit minimum-income guarantee level.

If nothing else, I am proposing that we do not abandon the earnings link for those poorest pensioners, so I have inserted a provision in page 1, line 8, at the end,

“for the purposes of paragraphs (za) to (c) … only”

of Section 150A(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That would exclude this Bill from applying to the pension credit minimum income guarantee. It would, I stress, still allow the Secretary of State the discretion to use a different level of earnings than average weekly earnings should she decide to do that for reasons of policy, such as not having too big a differential or too big excess of pension credit over the new state pension. However, the main principle that I am trying to preserve within these amendments is the importance to pensioners, in the context of pensioner poverty and a state pension that is pretty much the lowest in the developed world, that the promised protection is in line with earnings. That is crucial. We must, in my view, not set a dangerous precedent, even for one year. We can take alternative measures to account for the distortions of the pandemic. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 2 by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

That is another technical point that, rather than give an incorrect answer, I will come back to the noble Baroness on.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her detailed response and clear efforts to address the issues that have been raised, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important group of amendments.

I am still struggling to understand the rationale for not retaining the earnings link. Noble Lords are being asked to accept that, because estimating the pandemic’s distorting impact on earnings is rather difficult, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Office for National Statistics, the OBR and the legions of statistical experts we have at our disposal could not come up with a figure that the Secretary of State could use to allow for such adjustments without being at risk of being considered irrational. I really struggle with that concept.

Nobody is suggesting that the Secretary of State knows an answer that everybody would agree to. However, in the face of rising pensioner poverty, rising inflation, the lowest state pension in the developed world and the problems we can foresee coming next year, with the poorest pensioners being unable to afford the basic costs of living, it is concerning that we are deciding to remove a critical part of their protection which was promised in our manifesto, and which is not unaffordable, on the premise that it is too difficult to adjust the numbers.

I accept that the figure of 3.8% in Amendment 1 was based on an ONS blog; it was the only figure available that was a remotely official statistic. However, Amendments 2 and 3 contain important provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to use all the resources at her disposal to come up with a number that adjusts average earnings correctly and fairly, in a way on which maybe not everyone would agree but that would at least retain the vital principle of the earnings protection that pensioners have always been promised and, in the case of pension credit, that the poorest pensioners have always relied upon.

I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope we can have further discussions between now and Report and perhaps work out a way forward based on the important principles of social security policy that we have always stuck to in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Pensioners with lower incomes, particularly women, will be very sensitive to those index changes, and yet we have no impact assessment on this matter of considerable importance. Rather than just debate endlessly, the amendment is calling for the Government and the Minister to lay some analysis about the impact on pensioner poverty. Rather than having an argument, could the Minister not just accept the intent of my noble friend Lady Sherlock’s amendment and provide that report, so that we can all clearly show where we are going on trying to protect our poorest pensioners?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I have added my name to Amendments 5 and 6 and I support the thrust of these amendments. I urge my noble friend the Minister to look seriously at the merits of investigating the poverty levels that are rising among pensioners. Indeed, I urge her to accept some of these looking at the gender issues—so not just pensioner poverty but relative pensioner poverty between men and women—in her new role as Minister for Women, on which I congratulate her. I support these amendments and I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s comments.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to add that we have a complete lack of information on these proposals. As a matter of law, when the regulations come, they have to be accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary. In effect, we are making the decision now—the regulations are just a carry-on of the Act—and it is really unfortunate that we do not have before us the information that Parliament has decided should be available to us when we deal with these regulations.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I would also like to put on record my thanks to my noble friend the Minister and her officials for the very helpful and thoughtful engagement that she has had on this topic with interested Peers.

This is the fourth time since 2014 that legislation for uprating of pensions is being changed, yet this time there is no impact assessment or explanation of the impact on pensioner poverty. We are being asked to approve this—the House of Commons already has—before knowing what the CPI figure that may well be used instead of the 2.5% figure will be. I echo concerns about this setting a dangerous precedent.

However, I would like to help my noble friend, her department and all in your Lordships’ House, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, to see that this legislation is based on a false premise and is unnecessary. It is simply not the case that this Bill is needed to avoid an 8%-plus increase in the state pension or the pension credit. Section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 requires the Secretary of State to consider “earnings”, but the law does not define this term.

The ONS has already very helpfully produced an adjusted figure to take account of the base effects from last year and the exceptional impact of the pandemic on average weekly earnings, which is the traditional measure that has been used for uprating. It has also estimated the composition effect. It has come up with an adjusted earnings figure in the range of 3.2% to 4.4%. My noble friend from the Front Bench has already suggested that the CPI figure that will be released next week could be around 3.3%.

Using the adjusted earnings figure could avoid this—draconian, in my view—legislation, which tears up years of protection for pensioners and breaks a manifesto commitment. I am sure that those of us on these Benches are particularly concerned about that. Using the adjusted earnings figure would still potentially allow significant cost savings of £3 billion or more relative to using the unadjusted earnings figure, which, as I have tried to explain, is not necessary.

We hear that this is for only one year and that there may well be a restoration of the earnings link. However, the triple lock—I agree with noble Lords who have already mentioned this—is not an ideal uprating mechanism in any case, especially since the new state pension. It is the 2.5% figure that is the anomaly; it has no social or economic justification. Yet we are being asked to remove the earnings link, which I am convinced from many years of working on pensions policy is the most important part of pension uprating, because the 2.5% figure was used last year.

The UK state pension is hardly a king’s ransom. It is the lowest in the OECD, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, explained, and still below the 1979 levels, relative to average earnings. Millions of pensioners have no or very little income other than the state pension. Indeed, the pension credit designed for the poorest pensioners has always been uprated only by average earnings; it has never been triple-locked. The triple lock was a political construct that did not properly protect the poorest pensioners, yet here we are being asked to remove the earnings protection from the pension credit.

We have been down this road before. In 1979 Mrs Thatcher removed the earnings link from the basic state pension. As others have said, at that time it was worth 26% or so of average earnings. Subsequent to that, in 2010 it was worth 16% of average earnings. At the time there was some justification for removing the earnings link because we introduced a very generous state earnings-related pension, so that could carry the earnings uprating for pensioners.

The state earnings-related pension scheme, subsequently replaced by the state second pension, did provide earnings protection for many pensioners. However, millions—particularly the poorest pensioners, the lowest earners and mostly women—do not have the earnings-related bit of the state pension because they were not credited into it, they were not in the labour force long enough, they were caring for others, and so on.

We are therefore left looking at the basic state pension, the pension credit and the new state pension in this Bill because the additional parts are uprated only by prices, which is appropriate as they are mostly earnings-linked anyway. I argue that we are setting a very dangerous precedent if we fail to recognise the importance of protecting the poorest pensioners against falling behind the rest of society in earnings.

Let me give some figures. Average earnings are £540 per week. The basic state pension, after the triple-lock increases since the 2011 changes, which I supported at the time, is now £137.60 per week. The new state pension, which was brought in to encompass and incorporate the earnings-related bit of the state pension and the basic state pension for future pensioners, is now £179.60 per week. The pension credit, which the poorest and usually oldest pensioners rely on, is £177.10. We are not talking about well-off pensioners here.

We are now debating not increasing the state pension, their pension or the pension credit in line with average earnings, as adjusted by the ONS. This breaks a triple promise to pensioners. Breaking the triple lock, as proposed in the Bill, breaks only one of those promises. From the triple lock it retains the prices commitment and the 2.5% commitment—although I find that figure difficult to justify—but it breaks three promises: first, the triple-lock manifesto commitment, a political promise; secondly, the legal commitment to increase pensions at least in line with earnings; and thirdly, the legal commitment to increase pension credit at least in line with earnings.

We could still honour all these promises without the risks that this legislation entails if we used the adjusted figure. I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench, her department and noble Lords in this House to see what the CPI figure is when it is released next week. If, as expected, it is around the 3.3% level, I urge them to bear it in mind and to recognise that using the adjusted earnings figure would be a better way to amend legislation. It could, perhaps, be explicitly stated in primary legislation that the earnings index used should be at the discretion of the Secretary of State and could be adjusted in exceptional circumstances. I also urge my noble friend to consider the dangers of taking this protection away from pension credit.

Finally, I echo the call for a formal, comprehensive review of pensioner benefits and uprating to assess the triple lock, including the retention of the minimum 2.5%, and for rolling tax-free benefits such as winter fuel payments into a higher state pension which would then be taxable. This would allow us to avoid this constant round of having to amend legislation because previous commitments to uprating had caused problems.

I hope that we will be able to improve this Bill. I am very much looking forward to hearing the words of my noble friends Lady Stroud and Lord Freud on the issue of the uprating to universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out the clarification on her previous colleague, Steve Webb. I will certainly write to her and, later, I will come on to the issue of gaining Royal Assent by November.

Let me turn to my noble friends Lord Freud and Lady Stroud. I thank my noble friend Lord Freud for the passion and knowledge with which he speaks. I pay tribute to his achievements as Minister for Welfare Reform. I must, however, reiterate that the Bill does not concern benefits linked to prices, such as universal credit—but thank God we had universal credit when the pandemic came. We will be for ever in the noble Lord’s debt for making that happen. If I may say so, we will also be for ever in the debt of Baroness Hollis for the challenge that she provided in that; we all miss her.

In answer to my noble friend’s question, making the uplift payment permanent would cost £6 billion; this is the equivalent of adding 1p to the basic rate of income tax, in addition to an increase of 3p in fuel duty.

I have been really pleased to engage with my noble friend Lady Stroud. We have worked together on many projects, and I have found our conversations really useful and helpful. I know that she has strong views on the universal credit uplift, and that dialogue will continue. As I said, the Bill is very short and not concerned with benefits—I do not say that to annoy people—so the Government would not encourage her to try to draw a false link between the two separate matters. Again, the universal credit uplift was always intended to be temporary.

Lastly, I remind noble Lords of the need for Royal Assent by 22 November. This will allow the Secretary of State to conduct a statutory review using the new powers in time for the DWP to meet its hard deadline of 26 November for reprogramming its computer systems, to ensure that the new rates of benefit and pensions are payable from April 2022. Any delay to this Royal Assent deadline will result in the review being completed under existing legislation committing the Government to uprate by at least 8.3%, which would not be fair to the current and future generations of taxpayers.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

Can my noble friend clarify that the existing legislation permits the use of an alternative measure to 8.3%, and that the Secretary of State has discretion to choose to use a figure from the ONS that reflects the adjustment to earnings that the Bill is trying to ex out?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My noble friend has made this point on a number of occasions; other noble Baronesses and noble Lords have too. Before I bang a nail in, I think it is best that I write to noble Lords about that to make sure it is absolutely clear on that basis. I hope they will accept that.

My noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lady Stroud raised the issue of a UC uplift impact assessment. The legislation enacting the temporary uplift, including its eventual removal, was approved by both Houses. No impact assessment was conducted when the uplift was introduced, as it was by law a temporary measure, as I have already said. No assessment was conducted on the reversion to the underlying rates of universal credit.

Do I have only 20 minutes for this? No? Okay, I am in charge. We will not be here for another half an hour. I want to pay respect to everybody, but I certainly do not want to abuse the House’s good will.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, will take this in the spirit in which it is meant: I thank him for the master class in economics. I hope the Chancellor will read Hansard, and I am sure he will be in touch if he wants to take it further.

Environment Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

I had a recent experience of having a new housing development put up beside us at my home in Scotland. Being an adjacent proprietor, I was able to take interest in the planning of that development. It is in Inverness, so noble Lords can understand that there might be some water around, particularly rainwater, but also other groundwater. It was made a planning condition of the development that the developer had to put in place a new system to take the groundwater down underground. Thus the sewerage remained in the sewer, but the groundwater and rainwater were dealt with completely separately, rather in the manner of the hierarchy in Amendment 82, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. In my respectful submission on this subject, what is required is a system as described in Amendment 59, but not a system developed by the undertaker but rather by Her Majesty’s Government under the legislation that is required to make the separation, so that the water companies deal with water and the sewerage is dealt with otherwise.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 59 and 60, so ably spoken to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, whom I hope I can call my noble friend. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the engagement and time they have given us in discussing these important amendments. I welcome the Government’s own Amendments 61, 62 and 63. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government might go further. I also commend the work of my right honourable friend Philip Dunne, in the other place, who has done so much important work on this issue.

As we have heard, there were 400,000 sewage discharges in 2020. This is not a rare occurrence. Water companies have underinvested in sewerage infrastructure. I hope that the Government can overcome their reluctance to impose a duty on them in this Bill to act and invest urgently, as is required. Without such a statutory requirement as specified in these amendments, water companies will continue to be able to put profits and dividends above public health and protection of our precious waterways. I recognise and welcome that the Government have strengthened the duties on these companies, and the expectations to address storm overflows in the drainage and wastewater management plans that will be statutorily required by Clause 79(3)(g). But these plans will not even be consulted on until next summer, let alone be introduced or acted upon. So far, according to a very helpful briefing produced by Defra, water companies have committed just £1.1 billion to investigate and improve storm overflows. This is insufficient for the scale of the problem to be tackled.

I welcome the Storm Overflows Taskforce announced last August, which

“has agreed to set a long term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows.”

This, too, is most welcome but, so far, this involves improving monitoring and transparency rather than meaningful action to reduce sewage overflows into rivers and waterways. So far, the Environment Agency has clearly struggled to assess compliance with discharge rules and impose enforcement action or fines to galvanise noticeable action and stop or reduce these overflows.

Research on sewerage from Professor Peter Hammond and Professor Jamie Woodward of Manchester University has found clear evidence that untreated sewage or wastewater are being routinely discharged outside the conditions allowed by the Environment Agency permits. It is vital that regulation of discharges of untreated sewage and wastewater are tightened, and these amendments would assist in this regard. The Government’s plan is to set targets on reducing pollution from wastewater, agriculture and so on, but setting targets is not an active reduction of this pollutant.

I find it difficult to understand why the Minister and his department are so reluctant to put a duty now on the water companies directly to ensure they reduce and ultimately eliminate discharges of raw and partially treated sewerage into our rivers and waterways. The companies, represented by Water UK in an interesting briefing, have urged us to move focus away from end-of-pipe to look instead at the way surface water is managed, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh was commenting upon. It is true that developers are too often connecting to sewage systems that cannot cope, but this is only part of the problem, and it needs to be resolved by implementing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Of course, sustainable drainage systems are important, and connection to a public sewer should not be automatic and needs to be conditional on official approval.

I hope the Minister can provide the reassurances sought by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington so that he will not press Amendment 59. Amendment 60 places a duty

“on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged”

and

“demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused.”

In this ground-breaking Bill, how can we not impose that type of duty? Of course, the amendment also requires the Secretary of State and director of the Environment Agency to “secure compliance.” Too often, companies have been allowed to self-report. But, so far, the Government are saying they are fully committed to producing a report on actions required to achieve total elimination so they can fully understand the costs and impacts of doing so. But Amendment 60 would accelerate action on the ground. I hope that, ultimately, the Minister might be persuaded about the merits of supporting this amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this is an interesting issue. The question, of course, is: where does the blame lie? Sewage spills happen and they are intensely damaging for humans and for ecosystems, yet we have heard some explanations that almost seem conflicting. We can argue that it is we who cause the problem because of the way that we dispose of our own waste, or that it is the fault of the water companies, which are clearly incompetent at times—I shall be supporting the noble Duke’s amendment. As I argued in the debate on the office for environmental protection, we have to penalise them for these spillages. In many cases it might be the developers’ fault for building on land they should not have built on, or it might the local authority’s fault for allowing developers to build on, for example, flood plains where they should not be building. At the moment, however, it is the water companies, and we really have to take this seriously.

I am supporting all the amendments as they all seem perfectly acceptable. The Green Party’s view is that all new developments should have a proper, sustainable drainage system so that the sorts of spillages that we are hearing about simply do not happen. However, this has clearly not been achieved and it is a big problem. I have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on chalk streams. I was going to eulogise about them, but I think I was given the same briefing, as other people have covered more or less the same territory.

I thank Feargal Sharkey, who was the lead singer in a punk band, the Undertones—I am afraid I have never heard of it. He is apparently a lifelong fly-fisherman, but is now dedicating his life to chalk streams and he sent an excellent briefing. Chalk streams are very precious and special, and we do not treat them very well. If not one of our chalk streams currently achieves a good overall environmental health status, that is quite shocking; we really need to do something about it.

I was incredibly impressed by the PR machine of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I have had dozens of emails supporting his amendment. I admire that; perhaps he could share with me exactly how he got it to work.

This is, again, clearly an issue that the Government should have put in the original Environment Bill. This is an old Bill in the sense that it was originally written in 2019. It was pathetic then and it is pathetic still. Can the Government please do a little rethinking and include this issue in the Bill?

Environment Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 6th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer says:

“Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be done,

in earth as in heaven.”

I repeat, “in earth”. It was not the work of some liberal conspiracy in the Church or the Liturgical Commission but, somewhere in the last 300 or 400 years in the popular saying of the Lord’s Prayer, it somehow changed from “in earth” to “on earth”. This tiny change encompasses for me all that is wrong in our relationship with the earth of which we are a part. We used to understand that we live in it, we are part of it, we depend on it and that, as good stewards of the earth, the earth depends on us. Then, somehow, we decided that we did not live in it any more but on it; it was ours and we could do with it as we wanted.

Therein lies the whole challenge to the human race. What I want to hear from the Government on this crucial amendment is a clear signal that we have recognised—as a human race, as a nation and as the Government of this land—that there is an emergency, and that what is happening to our climate and to biodiversity is completely connected. At the same time there must be recognition of the terrible responsibility that we bear for having imagined that we lived on the earth rather than in it. By giving that signal, everything else could follow.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The Government are to be congratulated on the first major piece of environmental legislation in two decades; I congratulate them on this. It will set a world-leading framework for environmental improvement and vigilance. I believe that the Government—certainly my noble friend on the Front Bench and our excellent Minister in the other place—recognise the scale of the crisis. That has been said in the House already.

It is inevitably the case that the climate change emergency is much better recognised than the biodiversity emergency, yet the two are so linked. Indeed, it is frightening to see the decline in biodiversity. The figures announced by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for example, are a telling reminder of the dangers to our precious planet and the interconnection between all species on earth. Part of my religious belief is founded on the amazing magic that nature produces. This world has been created for us, yet we are in danger of ending the precious balance that has, in my view, been created for us. I hope that those who do not agree with my underlying religious belief on this matter will forgive me.

I hope that my noble friend might be able to accept the first part of Amendment 1, which aims to address the biodiversity and climate emergency both domestically and globally. I am not convinced that proposed subsections 2 and 3 are clear in what they imply. What does this mean? What do these extra bits add? What we want—and I think this House is keen to see—is that we are addressing a crisis in biodiversity and in climate change. Of course, there is pollution and waste management. All these things are incorporated in this crisis. I cannot support Amendment 21, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to speak to the first bit of Amendment 1.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I wish very briefly to endorse everything that my noble friend Lady Altmann said a moment ago. There is a great deal to be said for clarity and simplicity and I believe that the first part of this amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, frankly, says it all. We do not need the encumbrances. We need this clear, unambiguous, emphatic statement. If my noble friend the Minister will agree to give us that, I think it would be unwise of the House to seek to vote on the composite—as the trade unions would call it—resolution. This is what we need.

The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York put it very well when he quoted from the Lord’s Prayer. We are in earth. As president of the Prayer Book Society, I always say that and would not say anything else. I beg my noble friend the Minister to take on board the wise words of my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Deben—how good it is to have him back in the Chamber—and that he will accept this; then, we can move forward.

Environment Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to participate in the earlier discussion. I thank my noble friend for his clear response and for the meeting that he held. Will he clarify the Government’s thinking? Clause 78 requires a plan and an annual review, but who takes responsibility for the urgent action needed to control not just storm overflows but other discharges that are polluting our rivers? What will plans entailing long-term action mean for the Government’s expectation of how this will work? I know that my noble friend passionately agrees that we must deal with this issue. Will he commit to having further discussions with all interested noble Lords?

I thank my noble friend, as I will call him, the Duke of Wellington for all the work he has done to address the issue of who should take responsibility for the urgent action and financing needed to improve this situation and to invest the necessary resources to avoid or reduce polluting our rivers year by year. This could be done together with Ofwat, possibly by passing the costs of sewage waste on to household and commercial water bills. At the moment, it seems that people do not really focus on the costs of the waste they generate: it is waste, it is gone and therefore it does not feature, as it would if there were a perceived or actual cost. Perhaps the Minister would agree to meet to discuss this possibility.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her useful intervention. She is right: the cost of pollution rarely features on the balance sheet. Her suggestion that, in order to move forward, we need to find a way of internalising those costs is spot on. It is also the main thesis of the Dasgupta review. She asked who will be responsible: ultimately, the water companies will need to improve their act in order to prevent pollution of our waterways, but it is for the Government to set the framework and the rules. It is not the Government who will deliver the solution on the ground: that will be for the water companies and they will be required to do so. She also asked if I would be willing to meet. Yes, of course, I would be happy to meet her, my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and anyone else who has a particular interest in this issue. I am very keen to get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I have added my name to several of those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I shall speak to my Amendment 189, which is about reducing household water usage, and I am grateful for the support for it from the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.

It is predicted that by 2050 there will be an increase of 7 million people in the UK and our water level supplies will be down by 15%. Indeed, a recent report from the climate change adaptation sub-committee said that tackling water metering is one of the issues that we need to address urgently, that it would deliver some of the best cost-benefit ratios and that the sooner we started tackling it, the better. We need to do it so that there is enough water for people and for our rivers; I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, are no longer in their place, because clearly our chalk streams also need all the water they can get. It is right for tackling our climate change emissions because heating water in homes accounts for 4% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Equally, farmers, whom we heard from so eloquently in last debate, need the water to maintain successful farming and other business. We need the Government to act.

I was therefore pleased to see the announcement in the Secretary of State’s Written Statement in the House of Commons last week that the Government intend to introduce mandatory labelling on the water efficiency of household appliances. That is a positive step and I congratulate the Government on making it but, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, so eloquently said, we will not make the cuts we need in amounts of household water—down from around 142 litres to 110 litres per person per day, which the Government say they want—unless we have labelling and minimum standards, combined with changes to building regulations. It was notable in the comments of the Secretary of State last week that he did not definitively commit to minimum standards or changing building regulations. There was a vague date and “We might look at it in the future”. We cannot get the figures we need without those.

Frankly, I am coming to the conclusion that the Government will not go anywhere near changing houses, because of the influence of various property developers. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is not in his place, made a point in the debates last week about the influence of Taylor Wimpey on this Government and on housing developments. It is a scandal that we are not building houses that are carbon efficient and water efficient now. We are leaving the tab to be picked up by the environment, in the future, and the Government should be ashamed of that.

I partially congratulate the Government on taking up part of my amendment on labelling appliances but they have made no commitments on compulsory water metering. I raised this back in 2014 with an amendment to the then Water Bill. That is the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke so passionately about. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that when you are a junior partner in a coalition, you do not always get what you want, whether about water abstraction or metering.

Since then, people who are more significant than me have added their voices to the cause for compulsory water metering. In addition to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the Climate Change Committee is now saying we must introduce compulsory metering. The majority of respondents to the 2019 Defra consultation on reducing household waste supported compulsory water metering, and even the National Infrastructure Commission, which is not well known for supporting measures in this area, is in favour. I will not repeat the figures that were so well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, but will say that, at the moment, only half of UK houses are on compulsory water metering. We need to reduce usage hugely, and the only way to do it is through compulsory metering.

I ask the Minister if he can give the Committee any idea how the Government intend to meet their target of 110 litres per person per day, if they do not accept all the recommendations of my Amendment 189.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 188A, 188B and 188C in this group, which are also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I also add my support to Amendment 188 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. These amendments have already been extremely well explained, but I will add a couple of points.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, suggested that metering is the fairest way of charging. I completely agree on that. It is important to note the improvement in water usage that has occurred when metering has been installed. Therefore, controlling the supply and use of water is a major step forward in trying to ensure that our water supply is sustainable.

Environment Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to add my voice in general support of these amendments. It is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her rapier-like perception of how we might do things better and differently. I commend the usual channels on what is probably a very appropriate grouping, but it does cover a huge area of concern.

On Amendment 119, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I certainly agree that setting a deadline for producer responsibility is necessary and that we need to force the pace. We have been waiting too long and, without the pace being forced, I fear that, quite literally, the can will get kicked further down the road.

On Amendment 120, from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I have a sense of déjà vu here. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, a revulsion at things such as the Whitechapel fatberg. I also declare a proprietorial interest as an owner of private drainage systems. I have long prevailed upon tenants, holiday visitors, ordinary visitors and my own offspring not to put unsuitable things in drains, not least that product that noble Lords will recall claims to kill all known germs, including, I should say, the useful flora of any septic tank. These are among the things that we have to tell people not to use in private drainage systems.

In fact, many of these items, whether solids or fluids, should not go into foul drains of any sort, whether municipal or private. I agree that clear instructions on things such as nappy liners and wet wipes merely confirm to me that the information needs to be simpler, waste disposal more intuitive and the general public better informed. However, in moving to make this more rigorous, we can help by forcing the process of substitution with flushable alternatives, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

I noted the laudable campaign of the Nappy Alliance in Amendment 292, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Of course, as we have heard, nappies are only part of the problem and many other sanitary products are involved, but I would say that I tread carefully here. However, as an experienced user of drain rods and high-pressure drain flushing systems, I support the general thrust of these things with considerable fervour.

Earlier in Committee we had a discussion on single-use plastics. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and her Amendment 124, that we need to force the pace on publishing a scheme for dealing with this. It is very much down to the Government to produce that.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, reminded us in a very timely manner that resource efficiency must be one of our overarching touchstones in considering this. There has to be a degree of proportionality. We have to know what strategically we are getting at so that we can look at the thing in microcosm. I very much support that.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on labelling, brings in a vital part of providing better information on products of all sorts and—this is perhaps where one of the low-cost things might come in—generating cultural change. I think there are many willing members of the public up and down the country who, with better information and knowledge about the adverse effects of these things, would willingly and voluntarily move in the right direction. We need to try to tap into that. Personally, I am tired of searching for information on contents and potential hazards and for container recycling codes which are often badly printed or covered up by something else and so on. It would be very easy to do a great deal better.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred to out of sight, out of mind. There is one thing that has always worried me. Certainly, in my youth it used to be the standard advice that if you found a bottle in your late Uncle Fred’s garden shed, but the contents were not clear because the label had fallen off, you put it down the loo. That should not happen because there are some quite dangerous chemicals floating around. There needs to be better information about what to do with that.

When we talk about householders taking things to recycling places where they can be disposed of, please let us make sure that there is enough capacity and that they do not have to do what happens in one household recycling depot near me, which is that you have to go on the web and make an appointment to go there, otherwise you will not get in.

There are many things that we can do. On plastics, I am a great believer that the throwaway society is wrong. I am a great user of previously used plastic containers for all sorts of things. I obviously recycle the ones that I do not use, but some of them have been perfectly good substitutes for things that I would otherwise have gone out and purchased, and they last for many years—as containers for garden purposes, for property maintenance and so on. If some plastic items had a second or even a third life available to them, we would go some way to not requiring so many to be purchased in the first place. However, in general, I very much support the thrust of these amendments.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 124, so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and agree on how urgent it is for the Secretary of State to publish a scheme for disposal of single-use plastics, and to have that done within a time limit that reflects the sense of urgency that we have heard from so many noble Lords today. I also support many of the aims of the other amendments in this group.

These amendments touch on everyday family life. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, anyone who saw the “Panorama” programme a few weeks ago would surely wish to support policies that can help to stop the build-up of fatbergs and pollutants which are already so damaging to our sewers and rivers. The figure of 7 million wet wipes being flushed down our toilets each day, without people generally even realising the damage they are causing to the environment and our sewers—they do not even give it a second thought—is something that this Bill may have the opportunity to address. Making sure that there are clear warnings on such products and that these parts of a household’s normal weekly shopping are both identified as being as damaging as they are and, ultimately, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, replaced by biodegradable alternatives which do not cause that same damage are issues which I believe have not yet filtered through into the public consciousness. Given the work that we have done, we understand them—I declare an interest in that my son works in a company involved in replacements for plastics—but extending responsibility for this issue so that everybody becomes aware of it rather than just those in the know could help significantly to produce a step change in consumer behaviour and stop plastics clogging up so many riverbanks, sewers, landfill sites and other areas.

Taxation is clearly an option. Through the price mechanism, it would make sense—I believe that we are coming to this in a later group—to ensure that the most damaging plastics, which have caused significant damage already, are more punitively taxed so that consumers are less keen to use them. In that regard, I add my support to Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on consistency in any framework of public warning messages that potentially will be introduced to help public awareness. However, ideally, as I said, in the not-too-distant future the best option would be for those products that contain plastics that last for potentially thousands of years and do so much damage to be replaced with options that do not hang around and pollute our environment in the way people are currently doing without quite realising the extent of the damage.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this group concerns packaging and single-use items. I shall speak in support of Amendment 292 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. All the amendments in this group have a degree of urgency.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, spoke passionately to Amendment 119, which would ensure that producer responsibility for new packaging is in place for January 2024. I have spoken before about the need for producer responsibility on plastics and I fully support the amendment. The noble Baroness is quite right to emphasise the need for producer responsibility to be implemented without delay. After all, there has been extensive consultation. I am obviously more impatient than the noble Baroness, since I would have chosen an earlier date. However, I accept that manufacturers should be allowed time to change their practices and that this cannot be achieved overnight.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey quite rightly raised the issue of those households with septic tanks, a large percentage of which will be in rural areas. For the septic tanks to function as designed, chemical cleaning products and wipes should not be used and should be phased out nationally. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this point.

My noble friends Lord Bradshaw and Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, would require the Secretary of State to publish a scheme by December 2021 on the disposal of single-use plastics. This urgent timeframe meets with my approval. Wet wipes are causing tremendous problems and should not be left to volunteers to clear up.

My noble friend Lord Teverson’s Amendment 129 provides part of the answer for the Government. If all products were adequately and clearly labelled using a consistent format that the public could easily recognise, they would be more likely to read the information and take notice. This commonly approved and consistent design cannot be in 6 point font on the very bottom of the package. It will need to be of sufficient size for the purchaser to easily read on the front of the package, rather than having to hold it up over their heads to read what is on the bottom, which often happens when the package contains wet food.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised built-in obsolescence in household goods such as washing machines. Redundant white goods are extremely difficult to get rid of.

My noble friend Lady Humphreys spoke about the use of single-use plastics and the role of the Welsh Senedd, which wants to ban 19 types of single-use items, including plastic cutlery. The Senedd is concerned about the impact of single-use plastics coming over from the rest of the UK into Wales.

Amendment 292 is definitely not on a glamorous subject. There is no doubt that disposable nappies are extremely convenient. I wonder whether there is a Peer in the Chamber, including the Minister, who has not changed the nappy of a baby at some stage. My mother bought me two dozen terry nappies when I was expecting my first baby. They lasted until my second child no longer needed them and they still had a life in the garage as cleaning cloths. There were disposable nappies around, but they were costly and so were used only when we went on holiday. My granddaughter was kitted out with reusable nappies—a very different kettle of fish from the terrys of my day. They had a set of poppers, which meant they could fit a range of sizes, and were extremely colourful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on the work they have already done in attempting to ensure that we reduce the amount of plastic, particularly single-use plastics, and on the measures already in the Bill, such as Clause 54 and some of the schedules. The Government and my noble friend are absolutely determined to make sure that the Bill significantly addresses the dangers and the damage done to the environment by the use of plastics, which so many of us have grown up without thinking about the consequences of using. I hope that my noble friend can engage with some of the intentions and specifics of some of the amendments in this group.

I particularly support Amendment 140, which was so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Banning polystyrene use in food packaging, for example, could make a significant difference in the short term. I also agree with his aim of eventually banning it in construction.

I also add my support for the aims of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which concern plastics which are not polluting but have been developed to be fully biodegradable. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that some plastics are not planet-friendly, while others completely biodegrade naturally. If we are to impose a plastic tax, which I would support fully, there may be a need, through independent standards, to differentiate those that biodegrade properly from those which clearly will continue to damage the environment.

I look forward to hearing the thoughts of my noble friend about some of the amendments in this group, which are well worth considering adding to this excellent Bill.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is a powerful suite of amendments to tackle waste and our throw-away culture. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, the Government have had some success in tackling the low-hanging fruit—issues such as cotton buds containing plastics—but, somehow, sachets did not quite get included in the early initiatives. Clearly, with Covid, some uses of single-use sachets are helpful, but, in other instances, such as beauty products, it is really time for them to be banned.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made a very compelling case for more duties on companies to ensure that there is mandatory reporting of plastic packaging. In the past, this Government have trusted too much in companies and gone down the route of voluntary schemes. Now is the time to encourage more mandatory reporting of companies in this critical area.

Of course, we are not just talking about plastics here. I was pleased to co-sign Amendment 139, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which will encourage charges for all single-use items. He very powerfully made the case that a number of these alternatives are equally environmentally reckless and certainly will not cut our global greenhouse gas emissions, so we have to not only tackle single-use plastics but look at the alternatives that might be proposed.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville has done an absolutely sterling job tonight of raising a number of key issues and, in this group, lucidly reflecting on the issues around the importance of compostables, which can make a real contribution to moving towards more sustainable packaging alternatives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly said, the public need more education about compostables, and we need more local authorities to be collecting compostable films, because not all of them can be composted in back gardens—and indeed many households do not have back gardens, so they could not use compost bins even if they wanted to.

On behalf of the Lib Dems, I say that we absolutely support the Government’s plastic tax initiative, which is very welcome, although it clearly needs to avoid perverse penalties that would curtail the options for compostable films and incentivise their development for the future.

It was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about polystyrenes, which is clearly an area that needs a lot of attention. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I think that this is a complex issue, and, in the long term, we need to look at how they can be used less in construction. However, now we absolutely need to support alternatives, because these exist for food packaging. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, clearly made the case that this has been happening in a number of places around the world already. We need to get on to this and address the issue of stopping polystyrene being used in food packaging.

Like other Members, I attest to the fact that there is support on all Benches for more support and action by the Government to tackle waste. As we move towards the end of the evening, I hope that the Minister might be able to respond positively at last to some of these amendments.

Environment Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in his amendment. On the face of it, this does seem an omission, given that clauses from Clause 83 onwards deal specifically with water quality, yet it does not appear as a specific target.

I declare my interests in the register and that I co-chair the All-Party Water Group. I worked for five years with the water regulator for Scotland—WICS, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—and I have co-authored two reports on bricks and water which deal with water issues specifically in relation to housing. I am also vice-president of ADA, the Association of Drainage Authorities. Drainage boards have a specific role to play, being responsible for ensuring that lower-lying watercourses of below either eight metres or eight feet—I cannot remember which—flow as smoothly as they should.

Amendment 4 is commendable, and I congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Wellington on bringing it forward. Of course we should aim to have the best water quality, and to ensure that we have clean rivers, that—where possible—farmers can farm less intensively, and that we meet the highest domestic and international water quality standards, as well as seeking to improve our soils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, we must have a level playing field to ensure that we are not just improving watercourses in this country but ensuring that products grown on less regulated land and soil do not have a free pass to come into this country through trade agreements.

I would like to address one issue that my noble friend the Duke of Wellington referred to—untreated raw sewage being spilled into our watercourses. I would like to pose the question: why is that happening? It is happening because water companies are being placed in an impossible position. They are obliged to connect to major and smaller developments—to provide clean water and to collect wastewater and sewage coming out. We increasingly see that water companies are obliged to connect, even when they are placed in a situation where they may not be deemed able to do so.

I draw attention to the fact that we are seeing increasing amounts of surface water. This is a relatively recent phenomenon; it was identified for the first time in any significant way in 2007. I am drawing on the experience of Sir Michael Pitt, who was asked by the then Labour Government to write a very comprehensive review of how we should adapt to this new form of surface water flooding. Many of his recommendations have been implemented but many have not.

Subsequently, I am tabling amendments which will address the specific point of raw sewage. One way of dealing with it is to end the automatic right to connect to major new developments. This was called for by Sir Michael Pitt. It will address the specific problem of sewage outflow, particularly where combined sewers overflow and cause a public health issue in many cases—where the sewage overflow goes into existing developments and those residents have to leave. I believe we have asked too much of water companies, without giving them the wherewithal to address this, either through the quinquennial price review, or by allowing them to do whatever they choose to connect—sometimes against their better judgment—to major developments.

A way of addressing that is to ensure that water companies are given the same statutory right to consultation as has now been extended to the Environment Agency. Since the Environment Agency has been granted that right, we have seen the number of houses prone to flooding that are being built significantly reduce. Similarly, I hope we can see that water companies are not placed in an impossible position when it comes to major and significant new housing developments, particularly where they may be built on functional flood plains or land prone to flooding in the shorter term.

I entirely endorse the comments and remarks of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in moving this amendment about the importance of maintenance. We have to differentiate between the maintenance of major and minor watercourses, ensure that local authorities have the budget and resources to do the maintenance they are required to do and that the Environment Agency oversees it. I pay tribute to the work of those local drainage boards and landowners who are often responsible for doing the regular and very necessary maintenance on minor watercourses.

This might seem a small amendment but it is very significant, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on it, and on the later amendments we will consider in due course. I support Amendment 4.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 4, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and congratulate him on the work he has been doing on this important issue. I do not have significant amounts to add, but I believe that, as my noble friend the Minister said, this is a chance to radically improve environmental policy. In particular, the areas outlined in the Bill, such as air quality and water per se, could be enhanced by adding the specific requirement to take account of improvements urgently needed to water quality.

The Government have already said that they proposed to publish a plan by September 2020 to reduce sewage discharges into our rivers and waterways. I am obviously supportive of that and of placing a duty on water companies to publish annual data on storm overflows and set legally binding targets for water quality. However, it is likely that those issues will be dealt with in a more long-term timeframe than one might have hoped, given this landmark Bill.