Universal Credit

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Lord acknowledges the significant increase in universal credit claimants, and I understand the importance of the issues he raises. He also acknowledged the key people at the DWP, not least Neil Couling and the whole executive team that works with him, who have done a sterling job and will continue to do so.

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

I, like other noble Lords, welcome the retention of the £20 a week increase, which will indeed help many people. However, is the Minister aware of the report by the charity Scope on disability and the coronavirus, which found that many disabled people are feeling forgotten and experiencing isolation, a lack of access to basic essentials, delays in receiving benefits and medical care, and poor access to care and support? Will she assure us that the Government will meet with disability charities to ensure that all people with disabilities, and their families, receive the care and support they need during the coronavirus? Will she report back to Parliament on this?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue of disabled people and the challenges they face. The noble Baroness will also know that my natural way of working is to agree to these things and to report back. The only thing I can offer her today is that I will talk to the Minister for Disabled People and let him know what it is she would like to do. I will report back to her.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his explanation of the amendment and echo his request for some clarity from my noble friend the Minister. Is she able to give us an idea of the Government’s thinking on the future uprating of pensions?

Clause 1, before proposed subsection (2A), relates to the basic pension and the standard minimum guarantee. At the moment, the triple lock does not apply to the standard minimum guarantee and pension credit. Were the amendment to be inserted, it would ensure that the poorest pensioners, who are normally those we might wish to protect the most, would get the benefit of the full triple lock. The overall issue on which I should like clarification from my noble friend is whether she can give us an idea of the Government’s thinking on the 2.5% element of the triple lock. Is that likely to continue in the light of what is happening in the rest of the economy? If so, is there any thinking within the department on ensuring that the pension credit is also uprated by the full 2.5%?

I congratulate my noble friend on pointing out what I was going to mention about the relevant 2021-22 tax year. The thrust of this probing amendment is of interest to the Committee and I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome the amendment of my noble friend Lord Addington. We are all interested to hear the Government’s thinking, particularly on the future of the triple lock. I am sure that we all welcome their commitment to the undertakings in their manifesto and are pleased to see the Bill. However, in recent months, a lot of doubt have been shared regarding the triple lock’s future. Some people have said to me that there seems to be an almost systematic picking at the seams of the triple lock. With the Chancellor under pressure due to the economic implications of the pandemic, we would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government are committed to ensuring that the pension keeps its value.

The state pension is particularly important to give the poorest pensioners confidence. Everyone is suffering under the pandemic but there is no doubt that the poorest are suffering worst. We would like to know the Government’s thinking for the future. Will there be a commitment in the Bill to keep the 2.5%, as well as transparency and clarity to reassure those pensioners who are particularly dependent on the state pension? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for explaining what his amendment would do, and to other noble Lords who have spoken in pursuit of clarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised the issue of the uprating of pension credit and the standard minimum guarantee in particular. I will return to that in more detail when I move my Amendment 3 shortly.

The Bill is permissive rather than prescriptive. The Explanatory Notes say that it will

“allow the Government to meet its commitment to the Triple Lock.”

At Second Reading, the Minister was invited by many noble Lords to tell the House if it was indeed the Government’s intention to increase the state pension in line with the triple lock, but she simply repeated the formula that the Bill

“will allow the Government to maintain their manifesto commitment to the triple lock.”—[Official Report, 13/10/20; col. GC 309.]

Had she been able to go further, she might have obviated the need for much of the debate we are having at the moment.

The Minister was also asked at Second Reading whether the Government intended to stand by the manifesto commitment to the triple lock for the rest of this Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, pointed out, there have been various rumours and briefings swirling around that have cast some doubt on the future of the triple lock. But answer came there none.

I realise that the Minister is in a difficult position. She probably thinks it unreasonable of us to ask her to answer these questions because the decisions are not hers, but she speaks for the Government in this House. We are being asked to fast-track this Bill to enable the governing party to fulfil a manifesto commitment, although the Government will not tell us whether they are going to fulfil it. It does not seem unreasonable to ask for a bit more clarity. I look forward to her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I make no apology for returning to the subject which I raised at Second Reading: the injustice of frozen UK pensions overseas. First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for kindly arranging a meeting with me and some of her officials. I am grateful to her for listening so intently. I understand that she is unlikely to be able to accede to my request in this debate.

This amendment is not the one I should like to have tabled, but the ever-helpful Table Office pointed out that the amendment I wanted to table would not be within the scope of the Bill. I should like to have used the amendment tabled in the other place by the Scottish National Party:

“(2C) No power may be exercised under this or any other Act so as to exempt persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain from entitlement to up-rating increases granted by an order made by virtue of section (2A) of this Act.”


In his reply, my honourable friend Guy Opperman, the Pensions Minister, rejected the amendment, saying that

“this is a long-standing policy pursued by successive post-war Governments, who have taken the view that priority should be given to those living in the United Kingdom in drawing up expenditure plans for pensioner benefits. There are no plans to change that policy. The up-rating of the state pension is intended to provide support for pensioners who live in the UK.”—[Official Report, Commons, Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, 1/10/2020; col. 578.]

His statement was factually incorrect, as we know that uprating exists for those who live outside the UK but only in countries where there is a reciprocal agreement. My amendment seeks to clarify this. I trust that my noble friend can do so this afternoon.

At Second Reading, I followed my noble friend Lord Trenchard. He mentioned the unfair situation with regard to those who have served this country in the Armed Forces. I spoke of my home town of Uxbridge, with its strong RAF connections. Among the several case studies I shall mention this afternoon, I want to recall that of Wing Commander Harry Penny. He was the commanding officer of RAF Uxbridge in his last years in the UK before he emigrated to Australia. Interestingly, when he arrived in Australia, he was encouraged to continue making national insurance voluntary contributions to boost his national insurance record, and so ended up with a full UK pension when he reached 65 in the 1980s. He was never advised that it would be frozen.

As we approach Remembrance Sunday, I am sure that all noble Lords will be aware of the Battle of Kohima, and the deeply moving words from the Kohima memorial will be uttered around the world. Patricia Coulthard was present at the Battle of Kohima, and she is now fighting for veterans who retired abroad and have had their state pensions frozen. Ms Coulthard, who moved to Australia to be near her two children, told our Prime Minister earlier this year that she receives just £46 a week. That payment contrasts with the full state pension in the UK today of £175.20 per week. This amazing 99 year-old lady is just one of the more than 60,000 veterans who also suffer from frozen pensions. Ms Coulthard cared for soldiers who were injured at Dunkirk, before being sent to India, where she served in a jungle field hospital during the Battle of Kohima, in which around 4,000 of the British and Indian forces lost their lives. She suffered malaria, dysentery, fever and pleurisy, but she remembers her comrades and experiences with pride.

Roger Edwards risked his life for his country in the Falklands War, taking part in some of the conflict’s most hazardous operations, including the SAS raids on Pebble Island and Goose Green and the retaking of South Georgia. Roger is 70 now, and if he lives to a ripe old age, he could potentially end up being out of pocket by as much as £7,000 a year. Mr Edwards, who was born in Wiltshire, did not lose his full pension entitlement because he moved to a foreign country with no connection with the UK. No, he lives in the very place he risked his life for: the Falkland Islands. Yes, it is a UK overseas territory. This means he has full British citizenship. Yet that has not stopped the UK Government freezing his basic state pension. Mr Edwards is not alone. There are 42 people living on those islands with a frozen UK pension, about half of whom are military veterans.

Elsewhere in our overseas territories, our fellow citizens living in places as diverse as Montserrat and the Caribbean and the South Atlantic island of St Helena also have to make do with frozen pensions. Bizarrely, however, this policy does not apply to all 14 overseas territories. For example, those living in Bermuda, 5,800 miles north of the Falklands, and one of the world’s wealthiest places, enjoy the triple lock pension increases that their counterparts in the UK receive. All told, there are around 680 UK pensioners living in UK overseas territories with frozen pensions, even though they have made the same national insurance contributions as their UK peers.

That we have pensioners and military veterans such as Patricia Coulthard living on as little as £46 a week is utterly shameful and must serve as a wake-up call to end this callous, cruel and immoral policy without delay. However, it is not just our veterans who suffer this injustice. I have mentioned before that there is deep concern that members of the Windrush generation who spent their working lives in the UK but retired abroad are also losing out through frozen pensions.

I could continue with lots of cases of individuals. Around half a million are so affected. However, I contend that it is only right that every pensioner is more than a number on a spreadsheet in Westminster—or Whitehall, to be more correct—and it is high time that the Government held up their end of the bargain and gave all pensioners the pensions to which they are entitled. Many pensioners said they did not know the situation when they left the country. Today, there is information on GOV.UK about what the effect of going abroad will be on their entitlement. A government spokesperson said:

“The government continues to uprate state pensions overseas where there is a legal requirement to do so—for example in countries where there is a reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating.”


However, it appears that that information has not always been available for those leaving our shores. It is time we changed our policy, as the time-honoured reason given for this shameful state of affairs has been nothing but a blister on this country’s good name for fairness.

I know that appealing to successive Governments to do the right thing has simply not worked. There have sometimes been warm words at best, but certainly no action. I want to suggest to the Government something they could and should do to be more positive about it. How about proactively trying to get reciprocal agreements? Having left the EU seems to be the perfect time to think about it. Apparently, the last time an agreement was signed was in 1992, with Barbados. In 1992, I was still a slim young man selling furniture in Uxbridge, and although, luckily, through the miracle of Zoom your Lordships cannot see my current frame, I am sure you will realise that that was a long time ago. I have changed somewhat, but the Governments of the day still resolutely refuse even to try to rectify this situation. I would say to the Government that I would be happy to be part of any team to get these agreements signed and sealed, and with a substantial number of new ones, perhaps they will concede that all UK pensions abroad should be treated equally and fairly. However, I fear that the will is not there.

I have seen a communication from a Canadian MP, who states:

“I am told that the UK has continually declined overtures to open this issue and that it will not consider the indexation of UK pensions paid into Canada. I understand that a number of Members of Parliament have raised this issue in recent months. Canada first opened the door to this possibility with the UK when the Conservatives were in government in 2013, and the UK declined our offer to enter into negotiations about this.”


I cannot say whether that is the case. Perhaps we can have some clarification on that and, indeed, on whether any other overtures by other countries have been rejected similarly.

In the Second Reading debate it was a great pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, who, among many of his achievements in the other place, chaired the Select Committee on Social Security. In one of its reports on this issue, under his chairmanship, it was stated that it is a political question, which includes, but is not distinct from, a moral question. As always, the noble Lord put his experienced finger on the button.

I feel I have detained the House long enough on this, but I would like to ask whether Civil Service pensions are similarly frozen. Indeed, are those of Members of Parliament frozen? I wonder whether if any of my former colleagues decided to emigrate for whatever reason—I know that one or two of them threaten to do it periodically—they would be so pleased if they knew that their pensions would be frozen. Are service pensions the same? Perhaps my noble friend can find the answer to that and see whether it is just the state pension that discriminates in this way.

I add that if a UK pensioner returns to the UK for a holiday or some other reason, for the period that they are here, the pension will be paid at the updated sum—assuming, of course, that they contact the pension centre. Again, this discriminates against those who are too elderly to travel and those who cannot afford it, the very people we should be fully supporting.

This issue has been around for far too long, and it is about time that we as a Parliament and a nation decided that it should be resolved and that discrimination in our pension system should be abolished for all time.

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord for his interesting and eloquent speech. I remember that at Second Reading he was equally impassioned, and it is very good that he has put this amendment down. On the face of it, the policy seems extremely unjust, unfair, inconsistent and totally unjustifiable. Can the Minister give us more of an explanation of how it happened? It seems like some kind of anomaly. How many pensioners are affected in total? What is the future outlook? What would be the implications if this amendment were to be agreed to? I, too, looked at the debate in the other place, and I found the Minister’s response dismissive and completely uninformative, so it would be very good if we could have a bit more information about this current situation.

The noble Lord mentioned veterans in particular. It again seems completely unjust and completely lacking in any kind of compassion or gratitude for what those people have done for their country. Again, perhaps we could be allowed to know how many of these people are veterans.

The noble Lord mentioned government reciprocal agreements. That is right, but again, you need the political will, and whether that is there seems in doubt.

This certainly is a moral question. Here, I would like to mention the fact that many UK citizens are not allowed to vote, unlike in other countries. For example, France has an MP for citizens living abroad. I feel that if these people were able to exercise their vote, there might be a bit more political will to do justice for them all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have only a little to add to what has been said. If you do not know how severe a problem is, you cannot do much about it. Having something that looks into the problems of pension policy is a very sensible idea. The Minister will undoubtedly say, “We are—we are doing X, Y and Z” and give us a list, but the fact is that the non-claiming of benefits is something that bedevils our system. By necessity, it is a bureaucratic system, and even if you make the bureaucracy as manageable as possible, it is still there. People who think, “Well, I should not be asking for something else”—something that the pensioner population seems to get an A grade in—means that we have poverty that leads to other problems.

The reason we have given people these back-ups is because they need them: they make their lives better and mean they are not as big a drain on the National Health Service or emergency care going in to support them. It is actually in the general public’s interest to make sure that people are not living in poverty: it leads to problems, to costs and to knock-ons; it makes our lives less pleasant. So, I hope that when the Minister replies, she will give us some idea of how the Government are trying to find this information, because it is needed. To make the system work well, it is needed across the board. If we do not have enough information about issues, we cannot address them. The idea of having some solid knowledge to base future planning on cannot be a bad thing.

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in this group. I think they have a lot in common. The triple lock has done a great job in restoring value to the state pension, which is hugely important given that so many people are dependent on the state pension and have no other pension at all. The intention behind the amendment in my name is to have a detailed assessment of how effectively the triple lock is tackling poverty.

If we think about older pensioners particularly, and the pension credits debate, those I have been in touch with are very shamed at having to apply for means tests. Applying for benefit has a stigma for them, so I am not completely supportive of the idea of targeting in this respect. I personally believe that there are ways of ensuring that wealthier pensioners pay more, and support those who have less, other than by targeting pensioners in need and putting them through processes that they find distasteful and disturbing and give them great anxiety.

The issue of pension credits has been raised and yesterday’s Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, certainly contributed to that debate. If a detailed analysis were done before consideration of uprating policies, this could include the inadequacy of any take-up campaign and ensure a proper monitoring process to see what is happening. Also, on the points made about pensioners in poverty, particularly women, this is an area that needs to be looked at separately. Many women—older pensioners in particular—have very little pension entitlement. The new pension has, to some extent, addressed the fact that many women have spent a great deal of time doing the caring within the family. This needs to be looked at more closely, particularly when, with increasing divorce rates, very many divorce settlements do not address the fact that the woman has contributed to her husband’s pension over the years. I would very much welcome the opportunity for a detailed analysis of the impact of the triple lock, with particular reference to poverty and its effects on women. In so saying, I support both these amendments.

Pension Credit

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes the point that there are, I think, 1.1 million people who could have pension credit if they made a claim and were eligible. I know of no plans at the moment to uprate the other benefit to which the noble Baroness referred, but I will go away and find out and respond to her in writing.

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

Does the noble Baroness agree that many pensioners who do not claim pension credit feel stigma and shame in submitting to means testing? If so, will the Government consider revisiting auto-enrolment, to ensure that the poorest pensioners receive their full entitlement to financial support?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point about the reasons why people do not claim pension credit. Some believe that they are not eligible; others think that they have too many savings; others think that there is a stigma to it; and others think that they might get only a small amount, so it is just not worth the effort. The noble Baroness raises valid points about the vulnerable; we must do all we can to make sure that those people are aware of pension credit and that they make a claim where appropriate.

Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2020

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear presentation of complex material and her willingness to provide us with information about these regulations. We support this important measure, which gives powers to the Pension Protection Fund in the event of certain community companies being in financial difficulty under the new provisions brought in under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. As other noble Lords have said, it would be helpful to know just how far this extends and what other types of community companies might be included.

As the Minister explained, these regulations give the board of the Pension Protection Fund rights normally exercised by pension schemes’ trustees and managers. Under the new provisions, the Pension Protection Fund can end up picking up liabilities—for example, if the pension is underfunded. It is therefore reasonable that it should have a seat at the table, as it does for insolvencies. Given that these regulations will give the board of the PPF rights normally exercised by pension schemes’ trustees or managers, it is good to know that the PPF is required to consult with the trustees and managers who will lose their rights as a result.

The regulations give the PPF new rights relating to other community businesses, in addition to the limited liability partnerships and charitable incorporated organisations dealt with in the original measure. The new arrangements are welcome and timely, particularly in the light of the predicted economic impact of the pandemic and the further economic impact of Brexit on UK companies. However, there are still some outstanding questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. I apologise for not giving her notice of them. Obviously, if she would prefer to write that is perfectly acceptable too.

What specific powers are given to the PPF? Can these override the views of the trustees should, for example, a course of action proposed by them seem unduly risky? What arrangements are in place to monitor the implications of the moratorium restructuring arrangements? When this issue was raised before, the Minister said that as yet, there were no occasions when the new arrangements had been used. Other noble Lords asked whether this is still the case. Nevertheless, if it is not, I am sure it will be very important to monitor the impact and effectiveness of the new arrangements.

Have the Government also assessed the capacity and sustainability of the PPF, particularly in terms of its expected future workload? Other noble Lords raised this issue as well. As other noble Lords have also asked, what protection will the Government provide the PPF in the event of high additional financial demands that might suggest increased levy payments or potential reductions in pension compensation? I hope the Minister will be able to answer these questions but, as I said, I am more than happy to have a written response.

Youth Unemployment

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that constructive idea; I will certainly take it back to the department. However, we are holding what are almost local job summits around the country and people are working closely in geographical areas to achieve exactly what she challenges us to achieve.

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

Sixteen to 24 year-olds suffer discrimination through universal credit in that they do not receive the full amount. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that these young people receive a fair, realistic and just entitlement under universal credit so that they can meet their essential living costs and support themselves in seeking new work?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

On young people on universal credit receiving help to get work, I say that we do not compartmentalise any age groups. We are doubling the number of work coaches and we have the job finding support service. We have a £150 million support fund that can be used flexibly to meet the needs of people going into work. The support that young people will get will be second to none and we will turn every stone to get them into work. The noble Baroness will know that lots is being said about universal credit at the moment. I will not add to that but it is being looked at all the time to see how we can make life better for people.

Pension Scams

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

What plans do the Government have to improve support for victims of pension scams? The measures outlined in the report are criticised as inadequate. Can the Minister say what the Government plan to do about it?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness; I had trouble hearing her question. Perhaps I may read Hansard and write to her directly with a reply.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Janke Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the two new Peers and congratulate them on their excellent maiden speeches. The reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Field, to the poorest—those on the avenue to destitution—resonates particularly at this time. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, clearly has huge experience and knowledge, not least about pensions and social security, so I am sure they will both make very important contributions to the work of the House.

I support the Bill and the Government’s commitment to retaining the triple lock. It is good to hear today just how many noble Lords support the principle of the triple lock. There has been quite a bit of discussion, and quite a lot written, about intergenerational unfairness, with calls to abolish the triple lock, including by this House’s Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness, so for many there is a feeling that this might be under threat.

The triple lock introduced in 2010 was, as I understand it, to address the 30 years of decline in the state pension value. As my former colleague Steve Webb said recently, that job is not yet done, and other noble Lords have testified to the fact that the state pension in this country falls well below what is considered to be a minimum income.

There are many reasons to support the triple lock, most particularly for the oldest and the poorest pensioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, makes a good point when she says that it may not be the ideal way to help the oldest pensioners, but if it were to be abolished the oldest and the poorest pensioners would suffer and, according to the Pensions Policy Institute report for Age Concern, the number of pensioners in poverty would rise by 700,000.

The triple lock is also particularly important for women. Two-thirds of pensioners in poverty are women, and the retirement income of low-paid women would drop by 7% if the triple lock were to be abolished. Many retired women did not have the opportunity to build up their own pension as a result of caring responsibilities, and many retired divorced women did not get a share of their husband’s pension as part of their divorce settlement. I therefore also make the point that if the triple lock were to go, younger people would have to find something like £540 a year to avoid poverty in old age.

It would benefit none of us to see the triple lock abandoned and the loss of value to the state pension institutionalised again, as it was in the 30 years running up to 2010. As others have said, it would be a race to the bottom. Some of the reasons given for reviewing the triple lock include the whole argument about intergenerational fairness, which a number of noble Lords have discussed today. Raising the income of pensioners, many of whom are well off, may be seen by younger people to be very unfair, and it is true that many pensioners are well off, provided for by generous private pension schemes and having profited from property prices soaring since they bought their first house.

It is certainly true that circumstances have been much more favourable for those pensioners than for many young people today, but if this is seen as intergenerational fairness there are progressive ways that can deliver the principle of fairness. Several noble Lords have talked about tax, and pensioners with high income can be taxed in the same way as high earners so that people pay according to their means. So perhaps we should look at a fair tax system rather than cutting benefits to pensioners, regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

Another argument I have heard is that everybody should be seen to pay equally for the cost of the pandemic. Of course they should, yet if the triple lock were to be abandoned, the poorest pensioners would suffer disproportionately. Low earners would also suffer if the triple lock were removed. Today’s low-earning young people will have to raise their own income for old age if the state pension has lost so much value that it offers no security to future generations.

Another argument I hear is that the country cannot afford it. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others about the UK pension scheme being one of the least generous in the developed world. I understand that, in the UK, we spend 5.9% of GDP on pensions. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, with the triple lock this will rise to 8% by 2057-58, whereas Germany currently devotes 10% of its GDP to pensions.

It would also be a pity if this debate were to become a culture war, one that pits older against younger people, because that really does not help anyone. Today’s young will be tomorrow’s old and they will be in a similar position of valuing the triple lock for their old age. How we provide income in retirement should be considered to be a policy issue, and the idea that a decent state pension is unaffordable has been demonstrated to be a false one, as other countries have shown.

There is no doubt that many of those suffering from the loss of jobs in the pandemic are young people, and it seems that we are going to have to support them, as we should, but this should not be done at the expense of the many poor and impoverished pensioners. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, the state pension is the dominant source of income for millions of pensioners, while other noble Lords have pointed out that the uprating of other benefits is also long overdue. I hope that the Minister will address this in her summing up.

It is hard to see who would benefit from scrapping the triple lock other than pension fund managers, as people make their own provision for retirement. The losers are very clear: the poorest pensioners, oldest pensioners, women pensioners and today’s low-paid workers, who will be tomorrow’s pensioners in poverty if the value of the state pension is allowed to fall in future years. I support the Bill.

Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support this important measure, which gives powers to the Pension Protection Fund in the event of a company—specifically, a limited liability partnership or a charitable incorporated organisation—being in financial difficulty under the new moratorium provisions brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. I also thank the noble Baroness for her introduction and for her offers of information and the opportunities to ask questions before this debate.

As other noble Lords have said, these regulations give the board of the Pension Protection Fund rights normally exercised by pension schemes, trustees or managers. Under the new moratorium provision rather than the insolvency law, the Pension Protection Fund can end up picking up liabilities. It is therefore right that it should have a seat at the table in the same way it does in the case of insolvencies. As these regulations give the board of the Pension Protection Fund rights normally exercised by the scheme’s trustees or managers, when the trustees or managers lose their rights, the board is required to consult them as a result. That seems an important point.

The regulations enable these new rights in the context of limited liability partnerships and charitably incorporated organisations in particular. As other noble Lords have said, they seem timely in the event of the likely economic events in the wake of the pandemic. Other Members have raised a number of issues about that.

The sustainability of the Pension Protection Fund must cause anxiety in the light of potential large company failures and DB schemes in deficit. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, raised in his remarks the cost of levies. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised questions on a number of further risks, which I am sure the Minister will reply to, but I also particularly support her suggestion that the new arrangements should be monitored and reported. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised the specific powers of the PPF and whether it would have powers to override high-risk solutions to financial difficulties, particularly as regards safe assets and loans, which again the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned.

I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about the protection of a scheme’s members in the event of restructuring and the reactions of markets to economic events, which we seem to be seeing much more of at the moment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised the obligations of companies going through a moratorium, payment into deficit reduction, lending to preserve the company at the expense of the pension funds, and the PPF’s powers to do something about that.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that we need to know about the time lag and the impact of the delay to these regulations, and of course, pension funds and members of pension funds need to be made aware of these new regulations, so I definitely support having more information about publicity, as well as an overview of the impact of the new arrangements, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, talked about.

I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions and make things a little clearer for us in this regard. I support the regulations and thank the Minister for her time in offering to provide information.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2019

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction, and I support and welcome the order. The question that has not been fully answered is why it has taken so long for the relevant legislation to be amended in line with the court’s decision. Is this, as it appears, because over this period, DWP Ministers have strenuously resisted such action? Given her remarks about learning the lessons of communicating with claimants, does she recognise that senior politicians’ failure to listen to claimants has prevented effective evaluation of whether policies are achieving their objectives? Universal credit sanctions have caused such distress to the least well-off and most vulnerable people. The Government’s action in suspending sanctions until 30 June was welcome.

The report of the Select Committee, which has been referred to by colleagues in this debate, stresses that it regrets that the suspension was lifted so soon, and that threatening claimants with long and severe sanctions at this stage, so far from a labour market recovery, is unfair and counterproductive. What evidence supported the Government’s decision to reintroduce sanctions from 30 June? As others have said, there is ample evidence that sanctions disproportionately affect people with mental illness and that, at best, evidence on the effectiveness of sanctions is mixed. At worst, it shows them to be counterproductive.

Do the Government share the view of the Select Committee that the UK has some of the most punitive sanctions in the world? Removing people’s main source of support for extended periods risks pushing them further into poverty, indebtedness and reliance on food banks. The National Audit Office observed that the UK’s unusually severe sanctions regime compared to other countries is not grounded on a strong evidence base, nor has the department attempted to fully analyse the data it has at its disposal.

As to the impact of sanctions, 80% of sanctions challenged are overturned on appeal. Does the Minister agree with the Select Committee that the report into the efficacy of sanctions should have been made public before the decision to reintroduce them was announced, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the chair of the committee, has said? What evidence in the review supported the decision to reintroduce sanctions and why it was not made public? Will she also say when the review will be made public, in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee, along with a statement on what action the Government propose to address the failings of the current policy?

Children Living in Poverty

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in her first reply the noble Baroness referred to children in two-parent families. I point out that many of the working poor are single parents and that half the children in one-parent families are in poverty. They are doubly disadvantaged. What are the Government doing to ensure that these children’s futures are not blighted by the scourge of poverty in their early years?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

In my original Answer, I said it was very clear that people in work have a much better opportunity not to be in poverty. The noble Baroness raises the issue of lone parents, who have enormous issues to overcome. The Government are doing everything they can to make sure that people are supported, and the best route out of poverty for this group is to be in work.