Personal Independence Payments

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will know, you can claim PIP whether you are in or out of work. More than 5 million disabled people are in work. One of the aims is to continue to encourage those who are disabled to take up some form of work. I say again that it is incredibly important that this is done in a measured and targeted way in line with the needs of the individual.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentions that this as a conversation but that is not how the headlines read, is it? The headlines are that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are all about cracking down on young people, mental health problems, people who are sick, and people who do not want to work. The Government created PIP, so if there is a problem with PIP it is their problem. Everything about it is the Government’s responsibility. We have had 14 years. We have a problem with record numbers of people being locked out of work because of long-term sickness. How much of that is to down to the NHS failing? How much is down to lack of mental health services? How much is down to the fact that the systems that the Government have created do not work? We need change but, somehow, it is always jam tomorrow. I want to hear the Government come up with ideas. I do not want speeches that point out that we have spent 14 years buying no jam, then saying that there is no jam, then saying that jamlessness is a problem—but no actual jam comes along. Where is the jam?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am certainly not going to allude to any jam. It may come with my tea later if I am allowed it. As the noble Baroness has alluded to, this conversation is designed to consider what future support for individuals should look at. That is why we are bringing forward this consultation on PIP. As the Prime Minister said on Friday morning, and I was there in person to see him deliver what I thought was a brilliant speech:

“This is not about making the welfare system less generous”.


It is for a greater focus on those “with the greatest needs”, for whom

“we want to make it easier to access”

support “with fewer requirements”. Those who need support will continue to get the support that they need. The consultation will explore changes to the eligibility criteria, the assessment process, as alluded to earlier, and the types of support that can be offered so that the system is better targeted towards individual needs.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Sikka for introducing their amendments. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will speak to Amendments 223, 299, 302 and 303 in my name. I should probably say at this point that I am late to this party but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am not a data protection specialist, I am afraid. However, I am a social security nerd, so I am here for this bit right now.

Since this is the first part of the Bill on DWP powers to tackle fraud, I need to add my little statement on the “fraud is bad” move. Fraud is a problem and has been getting worse across this Government. There have been scandals in procurement, of which the infamous PPE contracts are just one example. There is tax due that goes unpaid at scale and, in social security, the percentage of benefit expenditure lost to fraud has been rising under this Government. However, as my honourable friends made clear in the Commons, a Labour Government would take fraud seriously and pursue all those who seek to take money fraudulently or illegally from the state. They would also focus on helping people to avoid inadvertent overpayments rather than just waiting for them to make mistakes then coming down hard on them at that point. This should not need saying but, in some of the discussions on this Bill elsewhere, there has been a tendency to frame the debates rather along the lines of a classical fallacy: “Fraud is really bad. This will tackle fraud. Therefore, this must be really good”. I know that we are fortunate that in the Minister we have someone who is able to have a much more nuanced debate. I look forward to having exchanges in a way that recognises the important role of this House in scrutinising the powers that the Executive want to take unto themselves, which is exactly what Committees in the House of Lords do so well.

Scrutiny particularly matters here because, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lord Davies pointed out, all these amendments—more than 200 amendments, 38 new clauses and two new schedules—were introduced on Report in the Commons. My honourable friend Chris Bryant tried to recommit the Bill so that the Commons could discuss it, but the Government refused. The interesting thing is that in their anti-fraud plan back in May 2022, the Government announced that they planned to boost the DWP’s powers to get information from third parties when parliamentary time allowed. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a fair point that departments have to wait for the right Bill to come along in order to use it, but the Government have known about this since 2022. They have had two years to draft the amendments, so although they might have had to wait for the Bill to come along, that does not seem a good enough reason for them to have waited until Report in the Commons to deposit them into the process. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the reasons for that.

My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and others have asked some important questions about the scale on which these powers will be used; I am going to come back to that in our debate on the next group. It is hard to know the scale from the information we have so far, but DWP clearly does know, or has a sense of it, because paragraph 85 of the impact assessment states:

“Using our model to estimate volumes of hits for this measure, over the 10-year appraisal period, internal analysis has estimated that in total there will be an additional 74,000 prosecution cases, 2,500 custodial sentences and 23,000 applications for legal aid”.


It has modelled the volume of matching hits that would require investigation. Can the Minister tell the Committee what that number is? Also, what assurance can he give us that DWP has the resources to investigate that number of hits in a timely manner?

Paragraph 2 of new Schedule 3B says that the account information notices can only cover data going back a year and that they must be done in the week before they are given to DWP. Is there any time limit on how long DWP has to act on the results that have been handed over to it?

I turn now to the amendments in my name. Some of them are quite detailed because these powers are astonishingly wide and it is not at all clear how they could be used. I have deliberately tabled a series of amendments—in three groups in order to make sure that we have a chance to go into detail—to try to get information out of the Government and find out what this is about.

Amendment 223 is a minor probing amendment that would delete paragraph 3(1) of new Schedule 3B, which Schedule 11 to the Bill would insert into the 1992 Act. I will not rehearse it here but can the Minister explain what that provision is for and what its limits are? Neither I nor the people I have spoken to in financial services can understand why it is needed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others mentioned the fact that the Information Commissioner said he could not provide to Parliament his assurance that this measure is proportionate. My other amendments in this group are therefore designed to try to understand the impacts better. Amendment 302 would prevent these new powers coming into force automatically, while Amendment 303 would require the Secretary of State to fulfil several requirements before laying regulations to commence the powers. Amendment 299 is a minor consequential amendment. The effect of this is that the Secretary of State would have to issue a call for evidence, to inform the creation of the first code of practice, and consult relevant bodies. They would also have to lay before Parliament statements on key issues, of which I will highlight two.

The first would say whether and how AI will be used in exercising these powers, as well as how those proposals will take account of protected characteristics; this was touched on by my noble friend Lady Lister and others. That benefits often engage protected characteristics is in the nature of social security. Sickness and disability benefits engage disability, obviously; pensions engage age; benefits relating to children may engage age and also indirectly engage sex; and so on. The National Audit Office has warned that machine learning risks bias towards certain vulnerable groups and people with protected characteristics. So, what external governance or oversight is there to ensure that, once data are collected on the scale envisaged here, we do not end up with a mass breach of equality law?

The second issue I want to highlight concerns the provision that will be made to ensure that individuals subject to investigation do not experience hardship during it or lasting detriment afterwards. Given the comments of my noble friend Lady Lister about the cases from CPAG, can the Minister say whether a claimant’s benefits will be kept in payment while they are investigated following the data that are surfaced as a result of these trawls?

I am concerned that, given the potential scale of hits, a claimant who had, say, inadvertently breached the capital limit but then found themselves at the back of a long queue to be investigated could find themselves ending up paying back really large sums. The Minister will be aware of the recent media coverage, which others have mentioned, of how the DWP is treating people who were overpaid the carer’s allowance, a benefit that gives £81.90 a week to people providing at least 35 hours a week of unpaid care. It is a cliff-edge benefit—if your net earnings are under £150 a week, you get the lot; if they are over it, you get nothing—so a small rise in the minimum wage or a change in tax thresholds or rates can be enough to make someone entirely ineligible overnight, even if nothing changes in their circumstances.

As my noble friend Lady Lister said, apparently, DWP’s IT systems can flag when a carer’s income breaches the threshold but it does not necessarily do that, allowing them then to rack up potentially thousands of pounds’ worth of overpayments. The Guardian has investigated this issue; I shall mention two cases that it offered. First, an unpaid carer with a part-time charity job unknowingly breached the threshold by an average of £4.40 a week—£58 in total—caused by the automatic uprating of the national minimum wage. Because that left her not eligible for anything, she ended up being told to repay £1,715, including a civil penalty.

In the second example, a woman caring for her husband with dementia and Parkinson’s was told to repay nearly £4,000 for inadvertently exceeding the earnings threshold by calculating earnings from her zero-hours job on a monthly basis, as she thought the rules required, rather than a four-weekly basis, which they actually do; the rules around allowable costs and earnings are quite complicated. Crucially, according to the Guardian, she was told that, if she appealed, it could cost her even more. The Guardian quotes from a DWP letter telling her that, if she challenged the repayment order,

“the entire claim from the date it started will be looked at, which could potentially result in the overpayment increasing”.

Is that standard practice? Is DWP currently acting on all the alerts it receives of overpayments? If these powers are switched on, what safeguards will there be when that happens to protect millions of people from ending up paying back years of overpayments that DWP could have prevented?

Before embarking on investigations on this scale, we need to understand more about how this measure will work. We have had some excellent questions in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and others; I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken today. I have been made well aware of the strong views expressed about this measure in Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her kind remarks. She is right: I take all these matters extremely seriously. I have listened carefully to all the speeches, although I might not agree with them. Many questions have been asked. I will attempt to cover them all, of course; I doubt that I will be able to but I assure noble Lords that it is likely that a long letter will be required after this. Obviously, I will reflect on all the speeches made in Committee today.

I start by talking about the timing of the introduction of this measure. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that the measure was introduced, in her words, “on the late side”. As she alluded to, the DWP published the Fraud Plan in May 2022, where it outlined a number of new powers that it would seek to secure when parliamentary time allowed. In answer to her question and others, in the parliamentary time available, the DWP has prioritised our key third-party data-gathering measure, which will help it tackle one of the largest causes of fraud and error in the welfare system. We will not sit back and ignore an opportunity to bring down these unacceptable losses and better protect taxpayers’ money. I will expand on all of that later in my remarks.

Before attending to the themes raised and addressing the amendments, it is important to set out the context for the power for which we are legislating. Fraud is a serious and damaging UK-wide issue, accounting for more than 40% of all crime. To be fair, many speeches alluded to that. The welfare system is also a target for fraudsters, and we are seeing increasingly sophisticated attacks occur on a scale that we have not seen in the past. We all have our own experiences at home of fraudsters who try completely different methods, not linked to the benefits system at all, to try to gain money through ill-gotten uses and methods.

In 2022-23, the DWP paid out more than £230 billion in benefits and payments to people across Great Britain. I very much took note of the figure that my noble friend Lady Buscombe raised. I say to the Committee that this figure is forecast to rise to nearly £300 billion by 2024-25, in quite short order, so this is a really serious issue to address. However, more than £8 billion has been overpaid in each of the past three years because of deliberate fraud against the state or because genuine errors have been made.

To assist the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to whose speech I listened carefully, fraud, not error, is the biggest cause of welfare overpayments, totalling £6.4 billion of the £8.3 billion overpaid last year. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also asked about the figures. These losses are largely because people are intentionally and knowingly taking money that they are not entitled to. This is not organised fraud either; the vast majority comes from individuals who are not entitled to the money. We cannot underestimate the lengths to which some will go in order to take money they are not entitled to or promote ways to defraud us to a wider audience. This new legislation is not just about protecting the taxpayer; it will help those who make genuine mistakes in their claim, and our swift action will avoid them building up large overpayments.

Some people have said that the department has the powers that it needs to fight fraud and error—I think that was alluded to even today. However, some of the current powers that we have to ensure benefit correctness are over 20 years old—a point that I think my noble friend Lady Buscombe made. In this time, fraud has evolved and become increasingly sophisticated and we must keep pace with the fraudsters. It is for this reason that the Government are bringing these new third-party data powers, as set out, as said earlier, in the fraud plan.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

220: Schedule 11, page 245, line 1, leave out from “only” to “relevant” in line 3 and insert “in cases where there are grounds to suspect that”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, alongside others to paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 in the name of Baroness Sherlock, would reframe the Secretary of State’s power to give account information notices, making clear that the power should only be used in cases where there is suspicion that benefits are not being paid in accordance with enactments and rules of law relating to those benefits.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in my name, which are designed to dig further into exactly what the Government plan to do with these powers. Amendments 220 to 222 are probing amendments which seek to establish what would happen if the powers to give account information notices were used only where there is suspicion that benefits are not being paid as the law intends. I will try to use this to find out exactly what will happen with the signal that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has been referring to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the debate on this group has focused largely on the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, regarding using powers only where there is a suspicion of fraud, making provisions so that information collected can be used only for the narrow purpose of determining overpayment, removing pension-age benefits from the scope of the powers and requiring approval from Parliament before the power can be used on specific working-age benefits.

I was going to go over the reason behind these measures once again, but I will not delay the Committee on why we are bringing them forward. I believe I did that at some length in the previous group, so I am going to turn to the amendments raised.

Narrowing these powers as suggested by the noble Baroness, with Amendments 220, 221, 222 and 222A, will leave us exposed to those who are deliberately aiming to defraud the welfare system and undermine the policy intent of this measure. In fact, taken together, these amendments would render the power unworkable and ineffective.

To restrict the power to cases where DWP already has a suspicion of fraud, as suggested by the noble Baroness, would defeat the purpose of this measure. The intent is to enable us to use data from third parties to independently check that benefit eligibility rules are being complied with. We use data from other sources to do this already. For example, we use data from HMRC to verify earnings in UC and check that the benefit eligibility rules are being complied with. Parliament has determined that, to be eligible for a benefit, certain rules and requirements must be met, and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly. Therefore, the DWP should be able to utilise information from third parties to discharge that duty. This is an appropriate and proportionate response to a significant fraud and error challenge.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also proposed that the power should be restricted such that it would not apply to persons who hold an account into which a benefit is paid on behalf of someone who cannot manage their own financial affairs—such persons are referred to as “appointees”. An appointee is a person who may be appointed by the Secretary of State to act on behalf of the benefit customer. Usually, the appointee becomes legally responsible for acting on the customer’s behalf in all matters related to the claim. It is also made clear to the appointee, in the documents that they sign, that we may get information about them or the person they are acting for from other parties, or for any other purposes that the law allows, to check the information they provide.

Under our proposed legislation, it is right to say that there may be some people who are not themselves benefit claimants but who have given a person permission to pay benefits into their bank account, who may be picked up in the data returned by third parties. Under the noble Baroness’s amendment, we would not be able to gather data on appointees, which would make the power unworkable, because third parties would not be able to distinguish between an individual managing their own benefit and an appointee. It also assumes that no fraud or error can occur in these cases, which is definitely wrong. I assure the noble Baroness that we handle such cases regularly and have robust existing processes for identifying appointees on our own database and for carefully handling cases of this nature.

The noble Baroness would also like to see the power—

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Rather than asking all my questions at the end—I only have four—I will try to get answers as we go. On the appointees, I think that the Minister has just said that the reason the Government need these powers is that some appointees will have their benefit money paid into their own account, not into a separate second account, so that therefore needs to be the case. I am very happy to reword this amendment to make that clear. I was talking specifically about the linking arrangements; the amendment does not talk about excluding appointee accounts. It specifically says that accounts that are linked to an account into which the benefit is paid are not there. I am happy to reframe that in a way that defines it—I am sure we can find a way around this—but does the Minister accept the principle behind this: that, if there is a separate account that, say, I hold for a child who is there, this should not give a reason to look into my own accounts? Or is he saying that the Government want to look into my own accounts, or business accounts, or family accounts as well? Which is it?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The Government do wish to have that power. I should make it clear that an appointee could be a claimant as well, so there is a dual issue. It is important that we retain that power, to be sure that we cover the whole ground. But I will reflect on the noble Baroness’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

That is understood. I know that I need to provide further reassurances. Attorneys are included for the reasons that I set out for appointees.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to try to answer the questions. I know that we have given him a hard time, but I thank him for responding so graciously.

He did not take the opportunity to explain the process simply to the Committee. It may be that it is too difficult to explain simply or that, in fact, he can explain what they intend to do, but the powers allow them to do something much wider than that. It would be helpful if he could reflect before he writes as to how best to frame this. I think I heard him trying to say to the Committee that people think that more information is being handed over than will in fact be handed over. If that is the case, it would be helpful if he could spell that out because that would at least begin to help people understand better what is going on.

Secondly, in responding to me, the Minister focused, understandably, on the content of the amendments. I was trying to explain that the reason they are probing is that it is quite hard to get a handle on this. It is a big, sprawly thing, and I am trying to find a way of nailing some jelly to the table; I am trying to find ways of containing it. I still do not know which benefits the Government can use the powers over and which ones they intend to. It is a great step forward to know where they are going to start; that is really helpful. I am also grateful for the clarity, whether people are happy or not, that the Government intend to use the powers on the state pension and make that clear because that was not the impression given in the House of Commons when the matter was debated there. That is a helpful piece of clarity for the Committee and the wider community.

I know this is hard; fraud is difficult. A case was mentioned where an organised fraud gang stole more than £50 million in social security benefits. I know it is hard, and I know it is hard for the DWP to understand precisely where these things will lead when you begin to go there. I understand that if it is too boxed in, it makes it difficult to be able to follow where the fraudsters go, who are often one step ahead of the Government. I get all of that, but there is a risk that when it has spread so widely, the level of concern gets to the point that it will not be as publicly acceptable as the Minister thinks it is. I ask him to take the opportunity, when he goes back to the department, to talk to colleagues and think about what kind of assurances the Government could try to find a way of giving to people, either staging processes or government oversight. I ask him to think about that because the kinds of concerns he has heard here will only increase as the powers start to unfold.

In the next group of amendments, which I think will now be discussed on Wednesday, I want to dig further into the question of who the data and account notice can be given to and what criteria will be used. That will be another chance to flush out some things, so I give notice now that I would like the Minister to look into those areas next. I am grateful for his efforts and to all Members of the Committee who have explored this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 220 withdrawn.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Grand Committee

There are questions about the regulations and about how the way in which TPR implements them creates problems for schemes. I just highlight these issues as we will have to return to them as and when the regulations are implemented and TPR’s guidance is issued in due course.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations and all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions. I should perhaps say that nothing in my speeches should ever be taken as actuarial advice or indeed advice of any kind, unless you have money to burn. As we have heard, these regulations implement significant changes to the DB scheme-specific funding requirements in association with the revised DB funding code. I will go through what I understand them to be doing—I invite the Minister to correct me if I have it wrong—and I have some questions.

The changes are driven by the recognition that most DB schemes are closed to future accruals and are maturing, which makes the longer-term strategic management of them important if members are to make sure they get their benefits in full when they fall due. The key principles underpinning the changes are a requirement for schemes to be in a state of low dependency on their sponsoring employer by the time they significantly mature, and better trustee engagement and better understanding and accountability between trustees and the regulator.

The regulations require trustees to agree a funding and investment strategy—an FIS—with the sponsoring employer, which will set out that longer-term funding objective and how it will be achieved over the lifespan of the scheme. Schedule 1 then sets out the matters and principles that trustees must have regard to in setting their FIS, and that they have to think about liquidity and unexpected requirements on the journey and after significant maturity, including the strength of the employer covenant, which I will come back to in a moment.

The trustees have to consult the employer on a statement of strategy on progress in achieving their FIS. In the absence of a Keeling schedule—I confess I am slightly obsessed with them—I went back to the Pensions Act 2004. Section 221B states that

“trustees or managers must, as soon as reasonably practicable after determining or revising the scheme’s funding and investment strategy, prepare a written statement of … the scheme’s funding and investment strategy, and … the supplementary matters set out in subsection (2)”.

Paragraphs (a) to (c) of Section 221B(2) say that the supplementary matters are: the extent to which trustees or managers think the funding and investment strategy is being successfully implemented, and if not, what they will do about it; the main risks faced by the scheme in implementing the funding investment strategy and what they are doing about the risks; and their reflections on past decisions and lessons learned. Paragraph (d) adds:

“such other matters as may be prescribed”.

These matters are now prescribed because they are defined by Schedule 2 to these regulations, which specifies the information to be covered in the strategy statement.

I assume this means that TPR will now have discretion on the level of detail it can request from a scheme in relation to the supplementary matters. Otherwise, without that discretion, it would have to rely on its existing powers and the setting of the clearer funding standards in these regulations. Is that a correct assumption? How will the DWP monitor whether the regulator is delivering that higher level of probability for which it is shooting? Are the Government leaving the door open to the prospect of increasing the regulator’s powers? That is an interesting one.

To return to the covenant, Regulation 7 puts the employer covenant assessment on a formal legal footing for the first time. The covenant now appears to be central to the new regulatory framework, rather than being left for the regulator to cover in the code. I presume the intention is for this to be an area of increased focus for trustees. This is welcome, given the increasing importance of covenant strength to the decisions made by trustees, although I suspect the law is catching up with trustee thinking as much as driving it.

However, getting access to enough information to assess the employer covenant is not always easy, and trustees and employers may not always align in their view of the strength of the covenant. The Minister mentioned that change can come quickly. We live in a world where changing markets and the impact of technology, mergers and acquisitions, leveraging and new creditors can all make a material difference to the strength of the covenant in pretty short order. The same forces can also reduce trustee confidence in the strength of the covenant in the longer term.

Regulation 7 requires trustees to assess the strength of the employer covenant, looking at current and future developments and the resilience of the business when they are setting or revising the FIS. As the Minister mentioned, funding deficits must be addressed

“as soon as the employer can reasonably afford”.

But we are also told that the impact on the sustainable growth of the business must be taken into account. Does that not put the trustee in the position of being faced with a push-me pull-you set of regulatory requirements, where the two are pulling in different directions?

Trustees will be required to seek more detailed information from the employer regarding its business. The regulator will provide updated guidance on the covenant, which will set out its expectations of both employers and trustees, and the regulations will clearly require trustees and employers to work more collaboratively in future. I have two questions about this, following the issue flagged up by my noble friend Lady Drake. Because placing the assessment of an employer covenant on a legal basis is novel, we need the Minister to make it clear how the regulator will resolve disagreements between trustees and employers on the current and future strength of the covenant, where that is inhibiting agreement on the FIS. If they cannot agree on the FIS because of different views on the strength of that, what will the regulator do about it? Secondly, will the regulator be able to impose its own view of the covenant on trustees?

Regulation 16 strengthens the requirements on the chair in respect of the strategy statement. It seems that the code has been drafted in a manner which assumes that chairs of trustees are appointed by the trustee board. I believe that there are still occupational schemes where the appointment of the chair is wholly the decision of the employer. Does this carry any implications for the requirements placed on chairs appointed in that way?

The costs incurred by trustees, which are funded by employers, will inevitably increase as a result of this. I am quite sure that the Minister will have read the 13th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I will not read it out in detail, but it points out the DWP’s assessment that about 16% of DB schemes had deficits in March 2023. It says:

“The Impact Assessment … claims that, as a result of these Regulations, DB schemes’ aggregate ‘deficit reduction contributions’ could be around £0.26 billion lower over the 10-year period compared to the current situation”.


It goes on to point out a range of issues around this, but what interests me is this:

“We note … that the IA states that it is based on data from March 2021, ‘therefore more recent market developments (particularly the rise in interest rates and gilt yields which impacted the estimated liabilities) are not captured in the modelling.’ In the light of market volatility, the House may wish to explore how robust DWP’s assumptions are about the potential benefits of these Regulations”.


I do not have a dog in this fight, but could the Minister put a response to that on the record? What assurances can he give the Committee in response to the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee?

Another point was made by that committee in its 17th report. I think the Minister indicated—or maybe he did not; I cannot remember—that this is a revised version of an instrument originally laid on 29 January. The DWP had to amend the content to amend the commencement date of one of the provisions to ensure that it aligned with the policy intention. Yet again, for the record I note a disappointment that once again we are having another instrument laid because of errors made in the original that needed to be corrected. It is becoming a bit of a pattern, I am afraid. But in this case, it provides us with an opportunity. In its 17th report, the SLSC said at paragraph 7:

“Our 13th Report of this session provided the House with extensive supplementary information on how the obligation is intended to work, and we are disappointed that DWP did not take this opportunity to improve its Explanatory Memorandum”.


Can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government did not take that opportunity afforded to them by the need to reissue the instrument?

I have two quick points to make that were raised by other Members. First, on the Work and Pensions Select Committee report, the Minister said that the Government would respond to that in due course. I recognise that it has only just come out and they will not be able to. However, there is one point that would be helpful in particular—they will already have thought about this—which is that the committee raised the position of open schemes and relayed concerns that, despite some of the changes that had been made, some open schemes still thought that the new regime could require them to de-risk prematurely. Are the Government confident that they have landed in the right space on this?

Secondly, my noble friend Lady Drake asked a very important question about the regime governing investment by schemes that have reached significant maturity, essentially about whether they will no longer be required to balance cash from investments and liabilities going out. It would be very helpful if we could know about both of those.

I apologise to the Minister that I have, yet again, asked a number of questions, but I am grateful and look forward to his reply.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this short debate. As usual, there were a number of specific and quite technical questions, notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I shall do my best to answer them. I think that some of them may be included in some of my rounding-up answers to other questions—but, as she will expect me to, I shall write a letter copying in all Peers if I fail to answer all of them.

Just on the question that the noble Baroness raised about the draft regulations, we outlined in the consultation response, as she alluded to, on 26 January 2024, that we would legislate for the regulations to come into force from April 2024, applying to scheme valuations from September 2024. That recognised feedback through the consultation about the need to give the pensions industry sufficient time to prepare before the requirements took effect. The regulations as drafted meant that one component of the reforms, the recovery plans, would come into effect on 6 April 2024 and not 22 September 2024. Since laying the regulations, we have recognised that this has the potential to cause confusion and additional administrative requirements for schemes. That is why we withdrew the regulations and relaid a revised version.

For clarity, we made two changes to the regulations. The first amendment was to ensure that the changes to recovery plans took effect only when the effective date of the actuarial valuation to which the recovery plan relates is on or after 22 September 2024. The second, in light of the first, is to clarify that changes which relate to actuarial valuations and reports also apply only on or after 22 September 2024. I reassure the noble Baroness that no other changes were made. These changes restate our intention to give sponsoring employers, scheme trustees and managers the same amount of time to prepare for the new requirements in the recovery plan.

I do not believe that I have an answer to the Explanatory Memorandum question, but I shall see whether I can address that before my remarks have concluded.

--- Later in debate ---

There are probably questions that I have not addressed. I will certainly look very closely at Hansard and will be sure to answer any outstanding questions. Before I conclude, I think the noble Baroness has a question.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I fully accept that some of these questions may have been technical and that the Minister may need to write but, in the case of one question that I asked, I would fully expect him to have come able to answer. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee took a lot of time taking these regulations apart. It made a number of recommendations and made comments about the Explanatory Memorandum. I fully accept the Minister’s explanation as to why the instrument was relaid—that makes absolute sense—but the committee explicitly asked why the DWP did not take advantage of the opportunity of having to relay the instrument to improve the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that he will have read the report, as I know he holds the committee in high regard, so I am sure that he came briefed and able to answer the question of why the department did not respond to that recommendation. Could he just answer that for us?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes, I will do my best to do so. Regarding the Explanatory Memorandum, as outlined, because the changes here were focused on clarifying the date on which the regulations came into effect, the changes to the Explanatory Memorandum were limited to reflect the change. We shall note the feedback for future SIs. That is my answer but let me reflect on it; I might well be able to enhance it in the letter that I am clearly going to have to write.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I will not interrupt further but, just to clarify the question, the point the committee was making was not that the Explanatory Memorandum needed to be changed to reflect the changes in the instrument itself. It was that, since the department was having to relay the whole thing, why not take the opportunity to do a better job of the EM? That is all.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Absolutely. I think I have already indicated that lessons have been learned. From my point of view, I regret that we fell down on the Explanatory Memorandum and that we had to relay the regulations. Just for the record, I wanted to say that.

With that, I hope that we can take these regulations forward.

Women’s State Pension Age

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the House will join me in thanking the ombudsman and his staff for all their hard work on this report over a number of years. The product is a serious report that requires serious consideration. The ombudsman has rightly said that it is for the Government to respond but that Parliament should also consider its findings. As my honourable friend Liz Kendall said in the other place on this debate, we on these Benches will study the report and its findings carefully and will continue to take seriously the representations of those affected by these issues.

It was good that the Secretary of State made a Statement soon after the report was published, and it is good that the Minister is here today. The Government have said that they will provide a further update to Parliament on this matter. Can the Minister give the House some sense of the timescale? Should we expect that to happen soon after the House returns from the upcoming Easter Recess? After all, this matter has been under consideration for many years now.

The ombudsman began investigating how changes to the state pension age were communicated back in 2019. In the same year, the High Court ruled that the ombudsman could not recommend changes to the state pension age itself or the reimbursement of lost pensions, because that had been decided by Parliament. The ombudsman's final report, published last week, says that in 2004, internal research from DWP found that around 40% of the women affected knew about the changes to the state pension age. Does that remain the DWP assessment? What is the Government’s assessment of the total number of women who could receive compensation based on the ombudsman’s different options? How many of those are the poorest pensioners, in receipt of pension credit? How many of them have already retired or, sadly, died?

The Statement rightly says that issues around the changes to the state pension age have spanned multiple Parliaments, and it is important that lessons are learned from the events described in the report. The equalisation of the state pension age was legislated for in 1995, giving 15 years’ notice to those affected. In 2011, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, decided to accelerate the state pension age rises, giving much less than 10 years’ notice to many of those affected. His comment that this change

“probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”

understandably angered many people and will not have made this debate any easier.

At that time, Labour tabled amendments that would have ensured that more notice was given so that women could plan for their retirement, which would have gone some way towards dealing with this problem. Given that the department already knew that there were problems with communicating changes to the state pension age, does the Minister think that it was wise for the Government to press ahead with the changes in the 2011 Act in the way that they did?

The Government have said that they are currently committed to providing 10 years’ notice of future changes to the state pension age. Labour’s 2005 Pensions Commission called for 15 years’ notice. Have the Government considered the merits of a longer timeframe and how they would improve future communications? Labour is fully committed to guaranteeing that information about any future changes to the state pension age will be provided in a timely and targeted way that is, wherever possible, tailored to individual needs. Will the Government make the same commitment?

Finally, the ombudsman took the rare decision to ask Parliament to intervene on this issue, clearly because he strongly doubted that the department would provide a remedy. In the light of these concerns, and to aid Parliament in its work, will the Minister now commit to laying all relevant information about this issue, including all impact assessments and relevant correspondence, in the Library, so that lessons can be learned and all Members from both Houses can do their jobs on this matter? Given the lack of confidence that the ombudsman has displayed in the likelihood of the DWP engaging to provide redress or a remedy, can the Minister say more about how his department will deal with future ombudsmen’s reports? I look forward to his reply.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Oral Statement to the House. However, to paraphrase “Hamlet”, methinks the noble Viscount doth protest too much. It is all protest as to why he is not doing things.

From these Benches, we support the WASPI women in their campaigns, and we welcome that, after their years of work, the ombudsman has finally recommended compensation. They must be recognised as courageous women, and their persistence should be rewarded. Sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, some have died along the way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hague, wrote a big op-ed in the Times today about why the WASPI women were not going to be paid. Basically, what he said can be summed up as “They should have known better”. At this late hour, I can think only to quote from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“All the planning … and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint”.


I am afraid that what has happened is that so much time has elapsed that so many of the WASPI women have died or retired, and life has gone on.

The DWP has said, so I have read, that it will comply with the ombudsman’s decision. I would like the Minister to say how many WASPI women have died—a simple calculation, rather than the additional details that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked for. Please will he come back to the House and say that the DWP has agreed, after consideration, that it will comply with that ruling, as the ombudsman suggested?

Child Poverty

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I think that is a little unfair from the noble Baroness. She will recognise, as I think the House does, that Ukraine has played a part. In the previous Question we heard about our role as a country, which is continuing, and we have had support from the Opposition on that. We have set a clear and sustainable approach, based on evidence of the important role that parental employment plays in reducing the risk of child poverty. We have a huge number of initiatives in my department to encourage more people to get into work. That is why, with more than 900,000 vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on supporting parents into and to progress in work, which helps directly with poverty.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister challenged my noble friend and cited statistics on absolute poverty, which, as we know, is the Government’s favourite measure. The last time we discussed this, on 28 February, the Minister told me that the Government prefer absolute poverty rather than relative poverty as a measure. He said:

“The absolute poverty line is fixed in real terms, so it will only ever worsen if people are getting poorer and will only ever improve if people are getting richer”.—[Official Report, 28/2/24; col. 1028.]


Since the latest official statistics show that 600,000 more people, half of them kids, are living in absolute poverty, does the Minister accept that the Government’s policies are now pushing children into poverty? If so, what are they going to do about it?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I have already spelled out what we are doing about it. Do not forget that these figures are one year out; they are retrospective figures. In my opening Answer, I spelled out what we had taken action on. The noble Baroness is right; we do prefer absolute poverty, because relative poverty can also provide counterintuitive results, as it is likely to fall during recessions due to falling median incomes. Under this measure, poverty can decrease even if people are getting poorer.

UNICEF: Child Poverty Rankings

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord raises an important point about children, who are the subject of this Question. The latest statistics show that, between 2020-21 and 2021-22, the number of people on absolute low income was virtually unchanged, and absolute poverty rates after housing costs were stable for children and working-age adults, with strong earnings growth offsetting the impact of the withdrawal of the unprecedented levels of government support, protecting those in jobs, which were provided during the pandemic.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentions various measures, but when it comes to international comparisons, the Government do not get to mark their own homework. Relative poverty is used because it is used internationally to measure poverty over time and across countries. The Minister may not like the way it was measured in other countries, but the UNICEF report card compares the UK’s performance in 2019-21 with its performance in 2012-14, and during that time, on those measures, child poverty in the UK clearly increased by 20%. During the same period, in Poland it fell by 38%, in Slovenia by 31% and in Canada by 23%. Does the Minister not accept that something is going badly wrong here?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I come back to the point that it is important to have statistics that are grounded. The noble Baroness will know that, over many years, we have used our own statistics for poverty, which are cross-government. The Government prefer to look at absolute poverty, as the noble Baroness knows, rather than relative poverty, as the latter can provide counterintuitive results. The absolute poverty line is fixed in real terms, so it will only ever worsen if people are getting poorer and will only ever improve if people are getting richer.

Housing Benefit: Temporary Accommodation

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes, I am very aware of the “essentials” argument that often comes up in this Chamber. I do not have any answer for the most reverend Primate except to say that we note the questions that are put on that point. I shall go a little further, because he started by mentioning housing pressures. The £1.2 billion local housing fund enables councils in England to obtain better-quality temporary accommodation for those owed a homelessness duty. That is our way of making sure that there is some progress on homes.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, unaccountably, I am not a vice-president of the Local Government Association—no one has asked me to become one, but who knows?

A number of issues come into play here, but, basically, councils are probably going to spend heading for £2 billion on temporary accommodation this year. They have to pay up front to procure the accommodation, and then they can get back some but not all of it—and increasingly not all of it—from central government. The reality is that they are paying the price for the fact that we do not have a functioning housing system, and the Government, despite being in power for quite a long time, have an ambition but, so far, seem not to have the will to solve that problem. I am guessing that the Minister and the DWP are going to DLUHC Ministers and saying, “What are you going to do to solve this problem?” What answer are they getting?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

We have already taken some actions, and the noble Baroness will know that on 24 January this year the Government announced additional measures for local authorities in England worth £600 million. This includes £500 million of new funding for councils with responsibility for adult and children’s social care, distributed through the social care grant. Taking into account this new funding, local government in England will see an increase in core spending power of up to £4.5 billion next year.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, we too welcome the uprating of benefits and will support today’s SI but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, there are ever-rising numbers in poverty, as drawn to our attention by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s 2024 report on poverty, published a short while ago. According to its previous report, around 20% of the population were in poverty in 2020-21—around 13.4 million—of whom 7.9 million were working adults, 3.9 million were children and 1.7 million were pensioners. Poverty among people on universal credit remained high at the same time at 46%, it said,

“despite the temporary £20-a-week uplift and a resetting of Local Housing Allowance”

to better reflect the level of rents in an area. Poverty rates remained highest in the social and private rented sectors

“and much higher for households including a disabled person or an informal carer”.

The cost of living crisis is having a major effect on poorer families. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s cost of living tracker found the following shocking results in October 2022, across the poorest fifth of families: six in 10 families were unable to afford an unexpected expense; over half were in arrears; around a quarter were using credit to pay bills; and more than seven in 10 were going without essentials. The report found that there are elements in the benefit system that increase poverty, such as the two-child limit on income-related benefits, the benefit cap, the five-week wait for the first payment of universal credit and unrealistic debt repayment deductions. Will the Minister say what plans there are to reassess the impact of these measures? I have not been doing my job in this area for some time, yet I recall that, when I was, these measures were constantly raised as causes of poverty that need to be addressed.

The report finds that the level of benefits is inadequate for people to afford the basic essentials, which is a damning finding. It also urges a resetting of benefits that would ensure that income cannot fall below these levels through debt repayment deductions or repayment of advances. This is essential for people on benefits as a proper safety net, not just during the cost of living crisis but for anyone who is on benefits. When will a full assessment take place of the efficacy of universal credit as an adequate safety net for those who need it? What is the Minister’s response to these findings?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and all noble Lords who have spoken. As he has explained, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase most working-age benefits in line with CPI. We too welcome this instrument, because of course we want to see social security keep pace with prices, particularly at a time of spiking inflation and economic instability. That used to be the norm among both Labour and Conservative Governments, of course, but the past decade has seen a marked change.

There were of course the years of shame between 2013 and 2020, when most working-age benefits and tax credits were either frozen or uprated by small amounts, such as just 1%. Although today we are back to uprating mostly by CPI and occasionally by earnings, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, once again that uprating has been preceded by a period of speculation, which is deeply unhelpful. I can assume only that this is driven from somewhere inside the Government, because it happens too regularly. The speculation suggests that maybe this year the uprating will not be by the full amount or maybe will not happen at all.

As my noble friend mentioned, that speculation causes real stress and worry for people who depend on benefits and tax credits to survive. I begin to wonder: is it a strategy to allow Ministers the option of either freezing benefits or not uprating them fully so that, if they then finally do the right thing, people are supposed to be suitably grateful? As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out, it is good that benefits are being uprated, but it is not an act of unusual generosity; it is simply a decision not to cut the value of benefits during a cost of living crisis.

This instrument, as we have heard, also increases the state pension by earnings in line with the triple lock. I accept the distinction that my noble friend Lord Davies helpfully made. The rates of basic and new state pensions will rise by 8.5%, as will the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit and the higher rate of widows’ and widowers’ pensions in industrial death benefit. However, this does not apply to a number of the others. I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that. In particular, can he explain the position on the deferred state pension? If someone chooses to defer their state pension and the pattern is that the deferred amount is uprated by CPI rather than the triple lock, are they made aware of that? When people make a decision about deferral, do they understand the consequences?

I had some other questions on pensions and pensioners but I was entirely thrown by the decision to separate these two instruments this year. Most years, we do them together in a single block, so I wrote a wonderful speech waxing lyrical and weaving in pensioners and old age, but now here I am. I shall come back, if the Minister will indulge me, to a couple of more general questions on pensioners when we come to debate the next instrument.

The context for this year’s uprating, as my noble friend Lady Lister expounded in some detail—aided ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke—is absolutely brutal. I will not repeat the extensive critique that my noble friend made or her unpacking of the economic climate in which so many families are living, but it is brutal. The basic fact is that there are now more than 4 million children living in poverty. There are 400,000 more children living in poverty now than when Labour left office in 2010.

One of the things that bothers me about this is that, whenever somebody raises this, the Minister—I know it is in his brief—will at some point in the response use the line that the Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Yet, clearly, the facts speak for themselves: more than two-thirds of children who live in poverty have parents in work. Something in that picture does not work. It is something that all of us in politics must address.

We in Labour have been looking at what we would do. We have a plan to give people a better life, so that they are able to make ends meet and have a good start for their children. We are looking at making sure that there is a breakfast club in every primary school and at giving people access to cheaper energy and an insulated home. We will reform universal credit, jobcentres and employment support so that people can get a better job with better pay. We will also have a child poverty strategy. Can the Minister tell the Committee in his response what the Government’s strategy is? What is their plan to do that? Other than simply declaring that work is the best route out of poverty, what is the Government’s plan to deal with the challenge of child poverty today? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this short debate. Before I attend to the number of questions asked and subjects raised, I would like to say at the outset—I normally do this but, today, I give special feeling and meaning to it—that this Government really do fully recognise the challenges facing people across the country due to the higher cost of living.

Although inflation is trending in the right direction, with the Bank of England now forecasting a fall to a target rate of around 2% in three months’ time, I acknowledge that pressures on household budgets very much persist. I saw this for myself in a recent visit to the Earlsfield Foodbank. The Government are not complacent about such matters; I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have taken action on a number of fronts to address these concerns, which were raised by a number of Peers—four, to be precise—this afternoon. I may not be able to answer all the questions but I will do my very best.

Let me start at the outset—I do not think I have done this before—by saying that, although I acknowledge the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am generally disappointed that every single item was a negative. I am disappointed that nothing she said seemed to support what we have done in these regulations or what we are trying to do. We really are trying. There was a long litany of faults coming from the Government: that the uprating was not enough; on the loss of the cost of living payments; on the freeze in the LHA, which is all for the future as we do not like where we stand on that yet; on the household support fund; and on the benefits cap review, including why it was not being done.

The noble Baroness is right to ask questions but I say gently that there is no mention of the genuine headwinds that all Governments have been facing. This Government have not been alone in the experiences of the pandemic and coming out of it, as well as of the war in Ukraine. There was no indication of these whatever. It is a bit disappointing. I know that the noble Baroness will understand why I have said these things but I thought it would be worth mentioning them.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, and I thank all noble Lords who spoke. I say to my noble friend Lord Davies that, if I were ever to go on “Mastermind”, this would definitely not be my specialist subject. Every year I have to revise it afresh, and every year when I pick it up it is as though I have never seen it before. It is a little like the content of my physics A-level, which I could hold in my brain for the duration of the exam but which then disappeared, having left no discernible effect for the rest of my life. So I actually thought it was an incredibly clear explanation, and I commend the Minister and all those who helped him to present it—I am very impressed.

My idiot’s guide to what this does is that it tells pension schemes the percentage by which they need to uprate GMPs built up between 1988 and 1997. Some years, having done the reading, I dug deep into the technicalities of this, but this year I will ask just two rather simpler questions about it. First, I think I mostly followed the question about how much is the total benefit of uprating between different components, so how many, if any, pensioners will see below-inflation increases in their pensions as a result of the 3% cap?

Secondly, last year, I raised the way DWP deals with those who have GMPs who may have lost out when the new state pension was introduced in 2016. As we have discussed before at this stage, in 2019, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported on its investigation of two complaints and said that the DWP had failed to provide clear and accurate information on the issue, despite being warned, with the result that some people were not aware that they might need to make alternative provision for their retirement. The ombudsman recommended that DWP should

“review and report back its learning from our investigations”

and that, in particular, it should improve its communications on the issue.

It was August 2021 when DWP finally produced a factsheet in response on GMP and the effect of the new state pension. Last year, I asked the Minister two questions about that. First, what was the DWP doing to draw the existence of the factsheet to the attention of those who might need to know it was there? Secondly, how many people had successfully applied, or indeed applied at all, for compensation since the ombudsman’s report? I did not get any answers, either on the day or in the letter afterwards—as far as I could see.

I have been back since and crawled through the correspondence between the Select Committee and successive Pensions Ministers, of whom there have been a number. I commend the committee for its diligence in this matter. Finally, in a letter from Paul Maynard, the Minister, to Sir Stephen Timms, dated 9 January this year, I found this sentence:

“We received 50 requests for further information (between 12 August 2021 and 31 December 2023) from people who responded to the GMP factsheet”.


There was then a breakdown of those requests. But how will those figures be updated in future? Does the Minister think that 50 requests in nearly two and a half years is enough, or does it perhaps suggest the need for more proactive communication, of the kind for which the Select Committee has been calling for some years?

With the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, I would like to ask a couple of questions more broadly relating to pensions. The first is a factual question. We were due to have the latest release of national statistics on the state pension two weeks ago. They came out as part of the quarterly DWP benefit statistics release, but they seem to have been suspended. Can the Minister explain why?

On the question of pensioner poverty, also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Minister will know, because I say it periodically, that the last Labour Government saw a marked fall in pensioner poverty, which unfortunately then started to go into reverse when this Government came to power. Now, one in six pensioners are living in poverty. Our success was largely down to the introduction of pension credit, which ensures pensioners get a minimum level of income plus passported benefits.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, take up is key. In January, statistics were published which looked at benefit take up. They suggest that for the financial year ending 2022, an estimated 63% of families entitled to pension credit received it. That was 3 percentage points lower than the financial year ending 2020. That suggests that there was a brief rise, but it has now gone back down to 2019 levels. Given that the Minister and his predecessor have got up and talked about how successful the pension credit take up campaign has been, have I read that correctly? Is the annual level of take up in fact going down? Please can the Minister explain that to me?

We also need to do what we can to boost the incomes of future pensioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, again mentioned the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No.2) Bill, which received Royal Assent with cross-party support, giving Ministers the power to abolish the lower earnings limit for contributions and reducing the age for being automatically enrolled from 22 to 18. On 18 September, the Minister told us that:

“If the House agrees to final passage today, the Government will look to play their part by consulting on how to implement the expansion of automatic enrolment at the earliest opportunity, which I hope gives some idea of the timescale to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We hope it could be later this year. We will then report to Parliament about how we intend to proceed in accordance with the provisions in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 18/9/23; col. 1201.]


When these regulations were debated in the Commons on 31 January, my honourable friend Alison McGovern asked when this would be happening and when these provisions would be put in. The Minister Paul Maynard responded thus:

“I would love to give her a date for when she will see that; “in due course” is never a good answer to give at the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid that it is the answer at this stage. However, I am pursuing this within the Department, so she has my personal pledge I am pushing it as hard as I can”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/24; col. 949.]


Having pushed as hard to get that Bill through, with cross-party support, does this mean it has been kicked into the long grass? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

Having considered the outcomes from customer-requested reviews and the fact that the triple lock has changed pension outcomes significantly, we do not think that further work to raise awareness of the fact sheet is necessary at this stage. We will, however, continue to keep this area under review. I hope that that provides some help.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I just want to understand that response. It does not sound like very many. I presume what the Minister is trying to say to the Committee is that, having looked at the denominator of how many people might expect to be eligible and how much they might get, that number does not feel disproportionate. Is that what he is saying?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes—that is absolutely right. Let me see whether there is any further information that I can get to the noble Baroness on this niche matter. If I am wrong, I will write, but I will certainly write anyway. I am coming towards the end of my remarks; I have only a couple more questions to answer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked where she might find the latest state pension statistics. As she may know, they are available on Stat-Xplore, but only up to May 2023. The release of updated statistics due to be published on Tuesday 13 February 2024 was suspended, as the noble Baroness alluded to in her remarks. This delay results from issues with the internal processing of state pension data after it was sent for analysis from the “Get your State Pension” system and has an impact only on statistics that are not yet published. State pension statistics previously published on Stat-Xplore in November 2023 remain reliable. Work is under way to remediate these issues, and we will publish the suspended state pension statistics as soon as we are able.

The noble Baroness also asked about the status of the auto-enrolment extension Act’s powers and the consultation. The Government remain committed to expanding the benefits of AE to younger people and helping all workers to save more for their retirement. This is why we supported the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023, to which the noble Baroness alluded. To cut to the quick, we intend to conduct a consultation on the detailed implementation of these measures at the right time and in the right way. That is probably not in line with what my colleague in the other place said—“in due course”—but our commitment stands to implement in the mid-2020s.

With those remarks, I will, as ever, check in Hansard that I have attempted to answer all the questions asked. The Committee should be reassured that, if I have not done so, I will write. In the meantime, I thank all three Peers for their interest.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, the first two instruments are of course welcome in providing the inflation-based uplift, particularly because the schemes do not require that from their inception, so it is certainly welcome that those payments will be made. I have only one question on that, which is to understand how the process of the change occurs around 1 April, as the Minister said would happen. Given the rate of inflation, the 6.7% is quite material.

I am curious to understand whether it is something that the claimant exercises some control over—in other words, if they decide to put in their claim in March, it will be at the lower rate; if they choose to wait until after 1 April, it will be the higher rate—or is there some other mechanism taking place that determines that it has to be before or after the uplift date? That will be a question for a lot of people now that we have the gap between approving the new rates and when those rates kick in. People will have questions about whether they control that or the department does. What is it that determines whether they get the old rate or this new rate, which is materially increased? I say that not to complain but to welcome it—it is extraordinarily welcome—but if somebody applied and found that by applying a week earlier, they had missed out on a significantly higher payment, it would be frustrating. I hope the Minister can deal with that.

On the final instrument, I again thank the Minister for the very clear and comprehensive explanation of how we got there. It touched on questions that I had when I read the instrument. I will play back to the Minister what I think I heard, and perhaps he can confirm in his closing remarks whether I have understood it correctly.

There are around 300 people a year in the category that we are talking about who were technically excluded from the old payment scheme. These people have been getting their money but, in effect, they have been getting it ultra vires. They should not have been getting it, technically; they have been getting it—that is not a complaint; it is extremely welcome if that is the case—but, in September last year, somebody spotted the fact that they should not have been getting it, and now we have 94 people sitting in the queue until we can fix that. Can the Minister confirm that that is the sort of number of people; that they have been getting the money and no one from the group that we are talking about was being turned away; and that it is just that from a technical, legislative point of view, we have been more generous than we should have been? If that is the case, that is great; I am happy to go with that.

I hope the Minister can just clear that up for us and confirm that, extending into the future, from the point of view of understanding whether someone is eligible, there is not a group of people who will not have applied because, under the prior definition, they thought they were ineligible. If it is the case that there is a group of people who are now eligible who were not previously eligible, I am keen to hear from the Minister how we are making sure that they are all made aware of that and encouraged to apply to the scheme.

On balance, these three instruments seem very welcome. They uplift a much-needed payment for people suffering from serious illness. The one question I have is around the mechanism for when that uplift kicks in between now and 1 April. On the third instrument, again, it is welcome, but I just seek reassurance that people in that category have not been turned away and that future claimants will be made aware of their eligibility effectively.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations to the Committee and all noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard, the Government have decided to increase the lump sum awards payable under the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme by the 12-month CPI rate last September, namely 6.71%. That is obviously very welcome.

We also welcome the fact that the Government have decided to align the definitions of these diseases as set out in the 1979 Act scheme with those in the industrial injuries disablement benefit—it was helpful to get that background and the amplification from the noble Lord, Lord Allan—hence the need for the third instrument we are debating here. It will have the effect of expanding the pool of people who are definitely entitled to the lump sums payable under the 1979 Act to include those with unilateral diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary lung cancer. This expansion is welcome but, just to follow on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for people who are in that queue and waiting for these regs to take effect in order to be able to get it, if they die before they take effect, are we in the position raised by my noble friends in terms of the differential between dependants and other schemes? Can the Minister comment on that?

The Minister is absolutely right that these schemes continue to provide crucial compensation to those who are suffering from these awful diseases and their families. Although money is obviously no substitute for a life, it can help with practical issues, especially if it is paid out fast.

Annual deaths from mesothelioma in Britain increased steeply over the past half-century, mainly due to the widespread industrial use of asbestos from about 1950 to about 1980. That accounts for the current high death rate among men over 70, whose younger working life coincided with the period of peak asbestos use. Thankfully, death rates for those below 65 have been falling. I looked through the latest statistics published by the HSE last July. They showed that there were 2,268 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2021, which is a fall of 302 from 2020 and below the average of the previous few years.

The HSE says that this reduction remains consistent with the earlier projections that the annual deaths would fall gradually during the 2020s and suggests that the variability in the figures for 2020 and 2021 may have been something to do with Covid, but it also says that predictions suggest that there will continue to be 400 to 500 deaths among females in the 2020s. If I am reading that right, that suggests that while male deaths will continue to fall, female deaths will not. Last year, in the same debate, I asked the Minister whether he could comment on that discrepancy. I did not get an answer. Can he help this year?

It occurred to me to wonder whether this had anything to do with asbestos being uncovered in schools and hospitals, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blower and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. After all, there are reports that a lot of asbestos has been found in schools uncovering RAAC, which is not surprising given that that DfE has previously said that 81%, I think, of state schools have asbestos. I gather that attempts are being made to launch studies into the impact on teachers and students. Last year, the Guardian reported that official data had already shown that female former teachers born between 1935 and 1954 have a 40% increased rate of mesothelioma. It also reported that statisticians have now detected a rate of mesothelioma deaths that “borders on statistical significance” among teachers born between 1955 and 1974. I hope fervently that my noble friend Lady Blower will not turn out to be in this cohort.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, there is also a problem in hospitals, and I hope very much that she will not turn out to be caught up in this terrible situation. Last July, the Times reported on the death from mesothelioma of Guru Ghoorah, an NHS nurse, at the age of 45, leaving two children aged four and seven. Four NHS hospital trusts were ordered to make a combined compensation payment to him of £650,000. The thing that struck me about that report, apart from that tragedy, was that it noted that ONS figures state that 177 NHS staff died from mesothelioma between 2002 and 2015 and that occupations are not recorded if a person dies aged more than 75. Two-thirds of mesothelioma deaths occur after that age. Interestingly, the Times reported that a freedom of information request by Sheffield University to NHS Resolution found that, between 2013 and 2022, 360 asbestos-related mesothelioma claims were made against the NHS. Sadly, each of those will have resulted in a death. That suggests a rather higher death rate than the official ONS figures. Can the Minister comment on the risks of asbestos in these settings, which were raised by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, to which the HSE is presumably alert? What action is being taken to protect staff, students and patients? Does he think this will impact mortality rates in future?

Looking at the statistics I was struck again that the north-east always stands out in so many depressing tables. Three of the top 10 geographical areas for male deaths are in the north-east, the region I live in: North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Hartlepool; as are two of the top 10 for women: Newcastle and Sunderland. Of course, these diseases are a product of our industrial past. If my noble friend Lord Jones were here, he would talk about south Wales miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. This debate is an important annual reminder of the price paid by so many people for our industrial heritage, our infrastructure and the society we all benefit from, but it is also a reminder of the need for government and industry to take health and safety seriously. The link between mesothelioma and asbestos was found in the 1960s, but asbestos was still being used widely throughout the 1970s. The schemes that we have been debating today were needed because, as my late and much lamented friend Lord McKenzie of Luton reminded noble Lords in the past, some employers and some people involved in liability insurance did not act as they should have done with regard to their liabilities, hence the need to create these schemes, so this is a good annual prompt to be alert to new and emerging risks to health.

The position of dependants has been raised again by my noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lady Blower. I would be interested to know the Government’s current position on this. My noble friend Lady Blower mentioned the TUC’s figure of £1.5 million as the cost of equalisation. Do the Government agree with that figure? If not, will the Minister tell the Committee the figure the Government have for the cost of equalising payouts to dependants and victims?

Finally, I am sure that the Minister will have seen the reports in the news over the past few days about a new drug breakthrough to treat mesothelioma. Does he have any more information that he can share with us on that?

I am grateful to the staff who have worked on this, to the All-Party Parliamentary Group, to the charities and to all those who work in this space. It is incredibly important that we keep up the work on research, on campaigning and on support. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.