Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between Baroness Fookes and Lord Davies of Brixton

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, may I make it clear that this is not an amendment? We are debating a straight question of whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill or not: in other words, whether it is accepted or not.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Sikka and in favour of retaining the existing legislative provisions by leaving out Clause 1 entirely. As the noble Baroness said, it is about whether Clause 1 should appear in the Bill at all. Clearly, to leave it out would vitiate the entire Bill but it would invite the House of Commons to think again, which is the primary role of this House. The intention now is to enable those of us who believe it would be reasonable and right to go for the full 8.3% increase that the Government have stated is the appropriate figure to debate it.

The triple lock has come in for some criticism. It does not enjoy universal support. I understand some of those criticisms and perhaps, in a perfect world, it should not be necessary. We would like to live in a world where pensioners would simply share in the same increases in living standards as those enjoyed by the working population. This is not where we are. For me, the triple lock serves a dual purpose. First, it is needed to protect pensioners’ living standards. Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, it is a way of increasing the flat-rate benefits towards a more adequate level. I am glad to say that I do not have to expound at length on that point because the case has been made so clearly by my noble friend Lady Drake. It is an accelerator which will project the basic pension to a more adequate level.

What is clear is that it is not at an adequate level at present, which is why what is described as the “ratchet effect” of the triple lock is so important; of course, the same would be true of a double lock, based on prices and earnings, which is why we shall return in a moment to the important role of the 2.5% element. Introduced as a political fix at a time when inflation was somewhat higher than it has been for most of the last decade, it has turned out to be of real benefit to pensioners.

As was so clearly explained by my noble friend Lady Drake, the job of the triple lock is not just to protect pensioners in relation to earnings and prices; it is, over time, to achieve real increase in their incomes when measured against either of these indices. As I have said before, it is an inherent feature of the triple lock, not a bug. Whether you agree depends on whether you think the state basic pension or the new state pension are currently high enough. If you think they are, you might consider that we do not need the triple lock, but if you want to see them increase, as I do, the triple lock has a proven track record of gaining ground on that objective. The triple lock may not be pretty, but experience has shown us that it works. During periods when the triple lock—or, in the case in the long-distant past of the 1974-79 Labour Government, a double lock—has applied, we have seen a consistent incremental move of the state flat-rate pension towards a more adequate level.

The element of the triple lock that has attracted most criticism, not least from my noble friend Lady Lister, is the 2.5% minimum increase. It has been said that it is arbitrary and without any justification. Maybe, but so are many other figures in legislation. When we analyse the real increase that pensioners have benefited from since 2011 with the triple lock, almost half the improvement has been due to the 2.5% element. To me, that in itself justifies its inclusion. Does anyone here believe that the basic state pension should be 18% of earnings rather than 19%? It might not sound like much but, to the poorest pensioners, everything counts.

Perhaps we need a debate about what level of flat-rate state pension we need and what the target should be when we have a ratchet effect. I would favour a commission to address the issue, building on the work of the earlier Pensions Commission, which set out the present structure of pension provision in this country. The commission itself did not feel able to specify with any precision what the basic pension should be in earnings terms, but the structure it established depends as much on the level of the flat-rate element as it does on the pension produced by automatic enrolment. I am pleased, therefore, to see that more work is being done in this area, through initiatives such as those from the Living Wage Foundation and the Pension and Lifetime Savings Association, with its retirement living standards.

Particularly given the hour, now is not the time to have a full-scale debate on the conclusions of that work, although it would be valuable to do so when appropriate. What is clear from the work that has been undertaken is that 19% is not nearly enough; it is well short even of the 26% that was attained back in 1979. These benefits are not just inadequate; there is a long way to go before they can become adequate. Consequently, we definitely still need a triple lock and its ratchet effect, and I would be prepared to see something better and faster replace it. That brings us to the increases due in 2022, as determined by this Bill. I believe that we can and should stick to the triple lock, as provided in the legislation, which means the 8.3% increase. Taking the increases to be made in 2021, 2022 and 2023, this provides an ideal opportunity to achieve a significant increase in flat-rate pensions towards a more adequate level in the longer term, which can only be a good thing.

It will no doubt be pointed out that this would have to be paid for, with the figure of £5 billion per annum being quoted. My noble friend Lord Sikka has dealt with that but, for the purposes of today’s debate, I simply say that I support increases in general taxation on those with the broadest shoulders to meet this clear social need, with the obvious target of equalising what I still think of, in the old terminology, as unearned income, rather than earned income. I believe that this would best be done by the restoration of the Treasury’s supplement to the National Insurance Fund, for which there is already provision in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself in a strange position tonight. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe it is a great error of judgment to end the uplift of universal credit or, at the very least, not to have brought it down by degrees. That said, I cannot agree with this method of trying to deal with the situation.

Perhaps I should explain that I spent many years in the House of Commons as a member of what was then called the Speaker’s panel of chairmen and as a Deputy Speaker there, as well as being a Deputy Speaker in this House, so I became very conscious of amendments and whether they were in or out of scope. It is important that those rules are observed, for the very good reason that, if you start to break them, anything can be added to any Bill and you can soon get into a real muddle. It does not always work in people’s favour, either.

I am very conscious of the fact that I believe that this amendment is outside the scope. We have certainly been advised so by the Legislation Office, but it was a conclusion that I came to on my own after many years’ experience of looking at amendments and seeing whether they were or were not admissible or out of scope. It is important to look at the Long Title of the Bill as the well as the short one; it is not a very long title, because it is not a very long Bill, but it makes provision

“relating to the up-rating of certain social security benefits”.

They are listed in this short Bill, and they do not cover universal credit.

For that reason, although I share many of the doubts and worries about universal credit—my noble friend Lord Freud made a most powerful case—my point is that this is not the way to deal with the situation. As we are a self-regulating House, if it comes to the point, I shall do my little bit of self-regulation and vote against any such amendment.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am as keen to get home as anybody, and I was looking forward to leaving, but I would not have missed this for the world. It has been the most gripping sitting that we have had.

I have a question for the Leader of the House. I cannot add anything to the substance of the debate, and I very much agree with what has been said about universal credit, but I am concerned about what the noble Baroness said about what counts as being in scope. What was said appeared to discount the significance of the Long Title; we were told that we could amend only in terms of what was already in the Bill. Potentially, that seems extremely restrictive; in future, we could be told that something is not provided for in the Bill so we cannot introduce an amendment on that subject. In her role as speaking on behalf of the House, and not as a Minister, can I ask the Leader of the House whether it is the case that nothing has been said that is intended to restrict, now or in future, what amendments can be laid, and whether the Long Title has an important role in determining the scope of a Bill?