UK Poverty 2025

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has been around the game long enough to know that no matter how she tempts me to comment on speculation out there in the papers, if I did that I would at the very least be sacked, if not actually transported. So I hope she will bear with me when I say that the Government will always be aware of and consider the impact of their actions on people across society.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, what is the Minister’s response to findings in the report that the two-child limit is the biggest driver of rising child poverty in the UK today? Scrapping it would lift 300,000 children out of poverty and mean that 700,000 children were in less deep poverty. Does she agree that voters in the last election reasonably expected a Labour Government to end this catastrophic Conservative policy, and, if she does agree, when are they going to get rid of it?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, Labour voters in the last election did not expect this Government to inherit the mess of an economy that we did.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, it has become a tradition for me to follow my noble friend Lord Jones on this subject. I thank the Minister for her presentation and the proposed uplift. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for the work that she did when in government and thank my colleagues in the DWP with whom I work as chair of the mesothelioma oversight committee, as I have been doing for a considerable number of years now. That group represents the trade unions, victims, insurers and all interested parties. That quiet work is done and the tragedies carry on. The numbers may be smaller but, unfortunately, there will be a long tail indeed. Some professional people are going to get it—those teaching in schools with asbestos—as will other areas.

To inform the Committee—I have said this before—I lost a sister-in-law to mesothelioma in Scunthorpe. We still do not know whether that was because she pushed trolleys around as a nurse in a hospital basement that was full of asbestos or whether it was because she was washing her husband’s uniforms when he worked at the Scunthorpe steelworks. I also lost a very close friend in my union, on the same subject, so this is a personal issue, as well as something that I have been pleased to do for the DWP.

That is really all I have to say, except to ask the Minister—my noble friend Lord Jones indirectly indicated the future—what money the Government are thinking of putting into more research on this dreadful disease.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

I, too, thank the Minister for her presentation. As she said, we have heard from many other noble Lords about sufferers from these diseases and that they are the legacies of old industries and still very much in evidence among many communities across the country. The diseases are not caused just by such industries; some sufferers still do not know how they contracted them. They are vicious and cause tremendous suffering, so I think, as the Minister said, that this is vital support for the sufferers. We also need to recognise that these are sick people; they may be very old and dependent on this payment. With the rising costs of energy, and so on, I hope that we might, at some stage, look more closely at how adequate these upratings are.

I am grateful to hear about the mesothelioma oversight committee, which I had not heard of before, but I would like to know a little more about the profile of this cohort of recipients. We hear a lot about their suffering—they have suffered through no fault of their own—and, as the noble Baroness said, their life expectancy is very short. So that would be helpful to me, but obviously we cannot have that today. The noble Baroness mentioned the number of recipients—I am sorry; I did not manage to write that down—but perhaps we could have something on that, on the age profile and on how many dependants are receiving the payments, as opposed to the actual sufferers. Can we hear a bit more about the life expectancy of some of the sufferers? It may be that we might get a more detailed approach to this payment, perhaps with the help of the mesothelioma oversight committee and other bodies.

I believe the Labour Party will conduct a benefit review. I hope there may be an opportunity to look in more detail at some of the cohorts. I have mentioned before that benefit payments are not really related to the cost of living or the cost of healthy eating. In looking at whether these recipients’ payments are adequate, we ought to think about the treatment, the suffering and the conditions that they must endure.

I hope that we may have the chance, in a review, to look at the particular needs of these people who are suffering from these terrible, debilitating and terminal diseases. I am sure that we all support the uplift, but I suspect that we all wonder whether it is adequate, so I hope that that will be looked at again.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I have stood where the Minister is standing on many occasions to bring forward SIs on this subject. I have always been horrified by the impact and the effects on people’s lives, and by early deaths that have come so quickly after diagnosis.

However, quite recently, a letter dropped into my letterbox at home from a legal firm in the north of England, advising me that the lady I had employed as my first PA, 43 years ago, had contracted mesothelioma. That made it a little more personal to me. I was then asked whether I could remember the names of other people I employed at that time, whether I knew where they were and whether I could give a rundown of the buildings that we worked in, in those early days. I did my best to do that, and that put me in touch with this lady, who ended up as the deputy director of HR at the John Radcliffe Hospital—a very able person. She is now coming to terms with what will happen in her life. That has made me more committed to understanding and supporting efforts to help them.

I thank the Minister for her clear outline of the purpose of these two statutory instruments. These regulations seek to increase the value of the one-off lump sum payments made under the two compensation schemes—the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—by 1.7%, in line with the inflation rate. Although we acknowledge that these increases are a positive step forward, particularly for those living with life-threatening conditions due to past exposure to hazardous substances, we must consider whether these adjustments are truly sufficient in the light of the immediate and long-term needs of the affected individuals.

The compensation schemes in question provide vital support to individuals who have suffered as a result of working in hazardous environments, particularly from asbestos exposure. Under the 1979 Act, lump sum payments are made to those affected by dust-related issues, while the 2008 Act compensates individuals diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma, including those who may not be eligible under the 1979 Act. These instruments propose to increase the sum by 1.7%. Although this increase offers some relief to those affected by asbestos-related diseases, it is important to ask whether this adjustment adequately meets the ongoing and growing needs of individuals whose lives have been irrevocably impacted by these conditions.

The previous Conservative Government consistently supported, and made increases to, these lump sum payments during their last Administration. Can the Minister commit to further increases in the payments in the future? I am sure she will.

His Majesty’s Opposition agree with these measures, but one concern that arises is the long-term sustainability of the compensation schemes. The draft regulations predict a gradual decline in long-term cost, as fatalities due to asbestos exposure stabilise. However, it is important to recognise that asbestos-related diseases continue to have a significant impact on individuals and families, and the effects of exposure can endure for generations.

I ask the Minister how the Government plan to ensure that the funds required to support these individuals will remain available as we see a decline in the number of claims over time. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national insurance and compensation systems can continue to meet the needs of those who continue to suffer from asbestos-related diseases?

Furthermore, the Government propose that the increase will apply only to claims where the individual first fulfilled the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2025. This raises an important point for consideration. By setting this deadline, there is a risk that individuals currently in the middle of their claim process may miss out on the increase, potentially placing an added burden on those who are already in vulnerable situations. I ask the Minister how this decision was made, and whether there is any flexibility built into the process to accommodate those who may be affected in the interim.

The uprating of the compensation scheme is a necessary and welcome action, but we must recognise that these increases may not be sufficient to address the full extent of the challenges faced by those affected by asbestos-related diseases. I hope that the Government will ensure that the long-term sustainability of these schemes is maintained, and that they will remain attentive to the needs of those who continue to suffer as a result of past industrial practices. We on these Benches absolutely support the uplift.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a trustee of pension schemes, and I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the two statutory instruments before us.

I want to raise an issue concerning the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. Given the pace at which DB pension schemes are transitioning to buyout contracts, this raises the issue of the extent to which, and how, a buyout contract contains liability for a guaranteed minimum pension, and the contractual provision of a promise to provide at least that pension from the age of 60 or 65. Is this a liability that all buyout contract providers must take on when they accept the original transfer from the defined benefit pension scheme? Secondly, does the DWP intend to update its guidance on the guaranteed minimum pension, considering the extent of buyout activity now taking place among DB pension schemes?

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her presentation. I also support very strongly the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, despite the loud and frequent calls for it to be abandoned. It is worth repeating that those who call for it to be abolished often do so from a position of financial security, conveniently ignoring the fact that large numbers of pensioners are dependent on the state pension, which is still one of the lowest in Europe.

I also welcome the capping of automatic deductions on debt from universal credit that leave people far below the amount they need to live on. But over the last year there have been reports of record levels of deductions from universal credit, and I wonder if the Minister could comment on the reasons for those.

The 1.7% uprating for other benefits will be of little comfort to the growing numbers in poverty. The Joseph Rowntree report has been mentioned already; it tells us that one in five people in the UK—21%—are in poverty. Of these 14.3 million people, 8.1 million are working-age adults, 4.3 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Children, as we have heard, have higher risks of poverty overall, at 30%, versus 21% for the whole population. But larger families with three or more children have consistently faced a higher rate of poverty: 45% of children in large families were in poverty in 2022-23. That is an appalling indictment of this policy, which Labour Oppositions have criticised so much, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, acknowledged. I wonder how long it will take for the Government to abolish it.

Today’s uprating means that we are looking to approve a basic rate of universal credit of £92 a week for a single person aged over 25, and £145 for a couple. Yet the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust have estimated that at least £120 is needed for a single person, and £200 for a couple, in order to afford even the basic essentials—a shortfall of around £30 a week on the bare minimum needed to survive. Shortfalls in the benefit system are key drivers of poverty, depriving people of the basic necessities for survival. Specific features have been found to increase the numbers in poverty, including the benefits cap and the two-child limit, and the erosion of the value of universal credit means that its standard allowance is now at around its lowest levels as a proportion of average earnings. I too support the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on having a basic minimum floor for universal credit.

Another feature is that the capital cut-off for universal credit has been frozen since the benefit was introduced. This is a form of taxation by stealth of the least well-off, and it hits hard people in their 50s and 60s who are on benefits, having saved something for later life. For example, if they have more than £16,000 in non-pension ISAs, they are disqualified from universal credit. I wonder whether this needs to be looked at again.

The House of Lords Select Committee report Hungry for Change recommended that:

“The Government should embed consideration of the cost of the Eatwell Guide into calculations of benefit payment rates”.


Many of us were very surprised to hear that this is not factored into the calculation of the amount of benefits needed to live on. The report continued:

“The cost of the Government’s dietary guidance should be built in as a reference point to consideration of government interventions, including those relating to welfare and public food provision”.


It also cited, horrifyingly, that

“the poorest decile of UK households would need to spend 74% of their after-housing … income on food just to meet the cost”

of the Government’s Eatwell Guide, as

“compared to just 6% in the richest decile”.

With individuals and families denied the means of buying bare essentials, will the Government undertake a proper assessment of the adequacy of benefit payments to pay for the cost of essentials, including food?

The uprating today, as others have said, is not realistic in the face of ever-increasing poverty in the UK. A far-reaching and radical review of the benefits system is needed to tackle some of the fundamental problems. I know that we all look forward to the forthcoming benefit review, and the child poverty strategy, which we very much hope will address some of these desperate issues that continue to condemn families and individuals to a life of insecurity, hunger and misery, and children to a childhood of deprivation that will stay with them for life.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for clearly outlining the essence of these two SIs. I recall that last year, they were debated separately but I cannot remember why. Nevertheless, we are reverting to the status quo ante, and I hope that this will speed things up somewhat.

--- Later in debate ---

I will try to run through the other questions quickly. I have plenty of time. On the question of food banks, this Government are committed to reducing mass dependence on food banks, and we are open to evidence from anywhere, including from the Church —particularly in relation to child poverty—about what is driving that. I am meeting with Church organisations and looking forward to visiting projects exactly to see at first hand the kind of things the right reverend Prelate is describing. We are keen to learn from that as part of the process in trying to review the child poverty strategy. I ask noble Lords to intervene if I have missed anything out.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

Can I ask about the record levels of deductions in universal credit that have been made in half of last year, which hit record numbers? I have been reading reports about them. Could we have some insight into that?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I do not have an insight on that at the moment. It is something I have asked about and have not yet got clear data on, but we are hoping that the changes we will make around things such as the fair repayment rate will help to rebalance that at the bottom, but I will have a look and, if I have any more data, I will write to the noble Baroness, if that is okay.

I turn briefly to the guaranteed minimum pensions increase order. I am grateful for the support for it. It simply aims to ensure that members who have a guaranteed minimum pension earned between 1988 and 1997 receive a measure of protection against inflation.

My noble friend Lady Drake asked a good question, as ever—in this case, about whether all buyout contract providers have to take on GMP liabilities in full when they accept the original transfer from the defined benefit pension scheme. I am happy to say that the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and associated regulations require all bulk annuity contracts to provide GMP benefits where applicable. From the point of view of scheme trustees, if a scheme was contracted out and still contains GMPs, both its trust deed and rules, and the legislation, will require the trustees to make sure that the bulk annuity contract provides those GMPs. From the point of view of the buyout contract provider, if a buyout contract includes GMPs, the provider is under a contractual obligation to provide those benefits. If the correct benefits somehow are not properly reflected in the bulk annuity contract, the scheme trustees, I am afraid, will remain liable for any additional liability, and that would include any GMPs. A question has been raised about whether there should be additional guidance, but the schemes and providers already have a clear legal duty or requirement that they have to follow and that they should be familiar with before they consider a buyout.

To conclude, through these orders, the Government are increasing the basic state pension and new state pension in line with earnings growth by 4.1%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings growth by 4.1% to support pensioners on the lowest incomes, increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs, and increasing carers benefits and working-age benefits in line with prices by 1%, and we are ensuring indexation on guaranteed minimum pensions earned between 1988 and 1997 that are in payment. I commend these orders to the Committee.

State Pension: Triple Lock

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

That was a little ungracious, I fear, but I will unpick those points one at a time. First, on poverty, let us have a little statistics duel. The last Labour Government lifted a million pensioners out of poverty. Meanwhile, relative pensioner poverty saw a slight increase in the decade between 2010-11, when Labour was last in power, and 2022-23, the period for which we have the latest statistics. We all have challenges to face here, but this Government are determined to work on that.

On the pensions review, as I have explained to the noble Viscount before, stage 1 was focused on making sure that the market was working properly. Stage 2, which follows next, will focus on making sure that we have the appropriate levels of saving in the market and that people have the vehicles in which to invest. We are determined to do this but we cannot fix the entire pensions market overnight. If we tried to do that, we would make mistakes and the noble Viscount would take me to task, rightly, for those. We will do this in the right time, not the fastest time.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, 1.2 million pensioner households are dependent on the state pension. This includes three times more women than men in single-pensioner households. Does the Minister agree that to abandon the triple lock guarantee would plunge the poorest of pensioners into even deeper poverty and inflict hardship on many others who do not have the security of generous additional pensions?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have made our position very clear on the triple lock: this Government are committed to the triple lock for the entirety of this Parliament. I am glad to be able to confirm that again today. However, underneath the noble Baroness’s question is something important about the gender pensions gap. I know that the noble Baroness has raised this before; I commend her for her commitment to this issue, which I share.

There are two things that I would say on this. First, the gender pensions gap starts with the gender pay gap, and this Government are determined to tackle that. For example, we have brought in gender pay audits. Once they come into place, we will be able to see what is happening on the ground, then address it and make it better. Secondly, the new set-up is better. Under the new state pension, we are finding that women pensioners are getting about 98% of what their male counterparts are getting; this was not the case under the old system.

Between these two things, and the review to make sure that private pensions work, as well as making sure that we get people into auto-enrolment, and that they get enough return on their investments, I hope that, bit by bit, we will improve the system for all pensioners, including women. I thank the noble Baroness for continuing to raise this in the House; it is an incredibly important issue.

Food Banks

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the strategy came through loud and clear in my right honourable friend Rachel Reeves’s Budget yesterday. We have to get this country back to work and get it growing. If we are to reach a point where we can not only repair the damage done to our public services but rebuild our country, we have to make it work. The foundations were laid really well and clearly in the Budget yesterday. The Government have a plan to make work pay. We have a White Paper coming out on that and are reforming the whole of employment support. We want people to be able to get into jobs, keep them and progress in them—not just to make a difference to themselves but to rebuild our country.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, to pay for the Government’s healthy eating recommendations, the poorest 10% of UK households would need to spend 74% of their post-housing disposable income on food. The consideration of healthy eating is not a factor in calculating benefit rates. Do the Government believe that the poorest and most vulnerable people should have access to healthy food and, if so, how will calculations about benefits in the future reflect this?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I absolutely agree about the importance of access to healthy food and there are schemes out there to help the lowest-income families access it, particularly pregnant women and the parents of younger children. Having been asked by a noble Baroness previously about breakfast clubs in primary schools, I went off to check and discovered that they are to be covered by the school standards for food, so we will make sure that there are nutritious breakfasts there. But in the end the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raises a really important point: we have to tackle the child poverty at the root of this if families are to be able to feed their kids appropriately. That brings us back again to the child property strategy but I am delighted that, in the short term, there were some down payments. One small thing, which will not have gone widely noticed, is that we will introduce a fair repayment rate for universal credit. It sounds really technical but reduces the total cap on deductions from universal credit from 25% to 15%. That means that 1.2 million of the poorest households have £420 a year more to spend, which makes a real difference.

Pensioners: Winter Support

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Approximately 1.4 million pensioner households receive pension credit. We received around 74,400 pension credit claims in the eight weeks following the announcement about the winter fuel payment on 29 July—which is probably what has triggered the noble Baroness’s question. In the eight weeks after the announcement, there were 74,400 applications, while in the eight weeks before it, there were 29,500. That represents a 152% increase in pension credit claims received over that period. That period finished in the week starting 16 September, so more have come in since then and more will come in between now and the deadline of 21 December for when people can apply and still have their winter fuel payment backdated for this year.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

A large majority of low-income pensioners are not on pension credit and therefore will lose the winter fuel payment, although they are living below the poverty line. What emergency measures have been put in place to support those pensioners? What are the Government doing to refine their targeting policies to make sure that full winter fuel support goes to all poor pensioners who are desperately in need of it?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the first thing would I mention once again is the household support fund. That is £421 million provided specifically for local authorities to support those in need, especially with the cost of living, such as food and fuel, so that is somewhere for people to go. We realise there is still a significant number of people who could claim pension credit, and if they get pension credit, they will get the winter fuel payment. It also opens up a gateway to other potential support with rent or council tax and passporting to a range of other benefits. We are running a campaign, and we will shortly be writing to 12 million pensioners. We will soon be writing also to 120,000 pensioners who get housing benefit who we think might be entitled to pension credit as well, so we are doing huge amount to make sure all that those in that space can claim it. The final point is that there are two bits to pension credit. The main bit tops up income to a certain level. There is also the savings guarantee, so people who have more savings and may think that they are not entitled to the slightly higher income could still be entitled to some pension credit. If they get any at all, they get the winter fuel payment, so please spread the word.

Women’s State Pension Age: PHSO Report

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, we understand the human impact felt behind the issues raised in this report. Retirement is a significant milestone that should, one hopes, be greeted with excitement rather than surprise. But I say to my noble friend that I do not think this Government could be accused of kicking the can down the road; the ombudsman published its report in March, we became the Government only in July and it is now October. Although I fully understand that he would like me to articulate a response here, I am sorry that I am not able to do so. However, I assure him that the Minister for Pensions met WASPI representatives recently—the first Minister to do that since 2016.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, by the time they reach 65, women will typically have £69,000 in their pension pots compared with the £205,000 the average man will have by the same age. What practical measures will the Government take to address the injustice of the pensions gender gap and enable proper security for women in retirement and old age?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising a really important point. The gender pensions gap starts with the gender pay gap. Therefore, the first thing the Government need to do is address the gender pay gap and we are committed to doing that. The national pay gap still stands at over 14%, which is really shocking. We know that most employers understand that, when women succeed, so does their business. We are committed to making sure reports are given. For example, gender pay gap action plans will be mandatory and will reflect the hard work of outsourced workers as well as employees.

The kinds of reforms that have taken place under successive Governments are beginning to change at least the way the state pension addresses the gap between men and women. In the new state pension, there is less of a difference because the old state pension was much more dependent on national insurance contributions and pay-related additional pensions, whereas the new one does not have that. The gap is closing, but in private pensions it is still significant, and we need to do more about that.

Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is a sense of bewilderment for so many people at one of the new Labour Government’s first actions being to punish the poorest pensioners for the shortcomings of the previous Conservative Government by restricting winter fuel payments to those receiving pension credit.

Means-tested pension credit is renowned for its low take-up: 39% of those entitled to it do not claim it. At this point, I would like to welcome the Minister. I am sure she will recall that during her time in opposition, we worked on a cross-party basis to try to boost the take-up of pension credit, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. However, despite a fairly vigorous campaign, its success was marginal and small. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said, successive Governments have wrestled with this problem over the years and failed to crack it.

The reasons that emerged for the low take-up were the resistance of this generation of pensioners to what are perceived as state handouts; and that the level of bureaucracy, as has already been mentioned, but also the burden of proof of need are so demanding that many people are intimidated by the idea of claiming. Many older pensioners do not have access to the ICT equipment and skills which are essential to make a claim. I would be interested to know what action the Government will take, where so many people have failed, to increase take-up. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has said, if they are successful, what will be the impact on the savings of £1.4 billion?

Age Concern tells us that more than 2 million pensioners will be harmed by this measure: some 1 million who are eligible for but not receiving pension credit; 1 million who are just below the pension threshold and on low incomes, about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke so movingly; and 200,000 who have high energy costs due to disability or a health condition, or who have to live in poorly insulated homes. It is also true, as we have heard in this Chamber from many noble Lords, that many pensioners who receive winter fuel payments do not need them; but surely a blanket withdrawal with no time for those affected to plan and assess their financial circumstances is callous and arrogant.

It is also irresponsible to introduce such sweeping measures without a proper impact assessment, given the risk to vulnerable and elderly people. I was interested to hear from the Minister today that we need several months to conduct impact assessments and consultations on ticket touting, yet somehow this was inappropriate for a measure such as this.