UK Poverty 2025

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question; I will certainly look into that and see what else the Government can do. There are a number of programmes, which are not always well known. For example, the holiday activities and food programme, which the noble Baroness will know about, provides in its broadest sense healthy meals, enriching activities and free childcare places for children from low-income families. Bringing together those schemes helps their health, well-being and learning. Also, the Government are committed to developing free school meals. The noble Baroness will know that from this April, free breakfast clubs will be rolled out. We have already picked the first 750 early adopters, which means that more than 180,000 children will begin to benefit—time together in schools learning, and also eating and being ready for the next day.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the personal independence payment is a benefit for disabled people as well as for those with long-term illnesses, including those who are in work, and it helps with extra living costs. Have the Government formally assessed the impact of any planned changes to PIP on in-work disability poverty? Can the Minister confirm whether freezing PIP will increase poverty levels among this group?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

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

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and their support for these regulations. I always find that this is one of the most moving debates we have in any year, and it gives us an opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives. My noble friend Lady Donaghy described her sister-in-law and her trade union colleague. There are also new cases: I was so sorry to hear about the employee of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. One of the reasons why we come back here year after year is in order to honour those who have died because of things that were no fault of their own—in most cases simply going to work or caring for others whom they loved.

I loved to hear my noble friend Lord Jones, whom I thank for his inordinately kind words about me. It is a real privilege every year to hear him. I commend him for his faithfulness: he comes here every year to bear witness to what happened to the slate men, the quarrymen and the miners of his homeland of Wales, and to what they suffered. I love the fact that he reminds us every time that the only reason why these things were attacked in the workplace was that trade unions organised and defended people there, and made sure that we had proper legislation, so that people were not being sent into dangerous places and expected just to put up with it. I thank him once again for reminding us what happened at Hebden Bridge and Blaenau Ffestiniog, and so on. We must never forget that history; otherwise, we will be condemned to repeat it.

I will try to work though some of the questions that were asked. I commend my noble friend Lady Donaghy on chairing the mesothelioma oversight committee. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has not heard of it. It is typical of my noble friend Lady Donaghy that she does incredibly important work in the background, and always points away from herself, never towards herself. This is another example, and I thank her for the work that she does. In this, as in so much else, I am grateful to her.

I will try to go through as many of the cases as I can. My noble friend Lord Jones asked how many cases of mesothelioma there are a year, and for a breakdown. We publish data on mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain, and I will send him a link so that he can see the breakdown of that. Unfortunately, mesothelioma is usually rapidly fatal following the onset of symptoms, but that means that annual deaths give a pretty clear indication of what is happening with the disease. Breakdowns are available by age, by last occupation and by geographical area—that is, where the person was living when they died. The statistics also include analysis of the relative frequency of different occupations recorded on mesothelioma death certificates, which is probably more useful as an indication of what happened in the past rather than of where we are going in the future—or, indeed, of numbers for particular occupations. It is a pattern.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this White Paper and are very keen that it should work and deliver positive outcomes for people who are out of the labour market, people who are economically inactive, those with health problems, and young people trying to get a productive start in life. Many of the proposals contained in the White Paper are either based on or continuations of some of the work we started in government—our WorkWell pilot schemes, our youth offer with youth hubs, and the universal support schemes—but we are not quite sure about the carrying on of the fit note, so I would be grateful for some confirmation on that. It is critical that the outcomes of the White Paper proposals work and, to that end, we really want them to.

I will talk about outcomes, which are important when looking at the investment being committed to this important area of work. As many in this House will know, I spent many years working with others in this sphere, so noble Lords must forgive my passion and commitment to the subject. Let me give just a few examples. On ThinkForward, we put our advisers in schools, working with the teachers and the management team. Our job was to prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place. The outcomes were that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds showed significant improvement in their attendance and behaviour. Some 60% of the group achieved at least five GCSEs at grade A to C and —wait for it—96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds in further education, employment or training were still there after a year.

Then we put our advisers into doctors’ surgeries. Let me tell your Lordships about the outcomes: a 20% reduction in GP appointments, a 74% reduction in referrals to practice counsellors—not that there is anything wrong with counsellors—and a 34% reduction in antidepressant prescriptions. Some 36% of people who completed the course were in employment and 80% of the 36% were still in employment 12 months later. This was for one surgery with a cohort of 200 people, at a cost of just over £2,000 a job. The noble Baroness who was the Minister of State for Education visited the project and saw for herself how great it was.

My other point on outcomes is, as noble Lords have heard me say many times, that getting someone into a job is one thing but keeping them there is another. Will His Majesty’s Government publish a set of metrics against which we can judge the success of Get Britain Working? Will they publish quarterly performance data? This will allow us to see what is working—and, indeed, what needs to change—to make this policy more effective. There is nothing wrong with changing half way through or changing course; people who do not change their minds do not change anything. Once someone has a job, will they retain the support of their coach to help them stay in work to ensure that the return on the investment reaches its full potential?

On employers, economic activity is not a problem that the Government can solve on their own. Businesses are the engine of our economy. They create jobs. No Government can improve employment rates without creating an environment where business can thrive and grow. If people are to get off benefits and into work, there must be jobs for them to do. However, as a result of this Government’s Budget, businesses are saying that they will no longer be hiring. Some 50,000 jobs will be lost from this Budget alone, according to the OBR. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions has had a negative impact on the chances of finding employment? If the Minister wishes to help more 18 year- olds into work, I respectfully suggest—I was challenged on this many times here—that she might speak to the Chancellor who has made it so that from April it will cost £5,000 more for a business to employ someone.

The Minister might also take the opportunity to speak to the Business Secretary whose Employment Rights Bill will, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, make it less likely that employers will take on young people. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s policies are counterproductive and making it harder for people to get into work? Only employers create jobs—and they have a very challenging time ahead.

As much as the people we are trying to help need continued, robust support, so do employers. We will be asking them to try to integrate people with various issues into their workforce. Let me tell noble Lords about one project I was involved in. A very high-profile car company said it wanted to integrate long-term unemployed people into its workforce. We got a young girl booking the executive travel for the workforce. She turned up for work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday but on Friday she was a no-show. Our staff went round and knocked on the door. She came down in her pyjamas. We said, “What are you up to?”. She said, “I never went to school on a Friday and nobody said anything”. That is true. We told her to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. We went round, knocked on the door and took her to work. The third week, she showed up and it was not a problem. That is an example of the level of support that people need.

We on these Benches fully support the review of the apprenticeship levy. It is much needed and will be welcomed by employers. But I am disappointed that those on the Labour Benches in the other place could not recognise the significant work that came before them on apprenticeships. We have had over 5.8 million apprentices earning while they learn since 2010, 225,000 of them at degree level since degree apprenticeships were launched by the Conservative Government. Over that time, we developed 690 high-quality apprenticeship standards in partnership with 5,000 employers, 370 of those in STEM subjects, ensuring that we delivered the skills the country needs. This is a record to be proud of and I know the Minister will be keen to build on it.

I come now to the merging of jobcentres and the careers service. It is good to see the continued cross-government working between the DWP, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. It is really important that the Government work across departments. The merging of Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service is a significant move. Can the Minister tell the House what assessment and analysis has been made to result in this decision? What is the plan for the merged service to become operational and what do His Majesty’s Government forecast that the benefits will be? What is the plan for ensuring the staff have the skills to carry out their roles? What is the timetable to deliver the new service and when will it become operational?

The challenge to Get Britain Working should not be underestimated but do we really need to wait one to two years for it to gain momentum? I assure the whole House that we on these Benches want this to work; we want Britain to work. For the sake of the people, we all want to help. To quote my leader in the other place: we are here for you—let us help. I personally pledge any help I can give to making this work.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the encouragement the Government are giving to improving apprenticeships, reforming jobcentres and investing in the health service to cut mental health and other health problems affecting labour activity rates. The long-term sickness at the end of this Parliament, projected to be 2.8 million, is clearly completely unacceptable, and the social and benefit costs of that will be dire. We need to transform our training, career and employment services. The only problem is that we have been arguing and discussing this for more than 50 years of my political life. It comes up in every generation.

In this sort of debate or Statement, we should have in front of us all the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, from the Budget debate. She said that

“if Britain were ranked against each of the 50 US states in terms of wealth, it would be last, with Britain’s GDP per capita … below America’s poorest state, Mississippi”.—[Official Report, 11/11/24; col. 1614.]

Our per capital income in this country has not grown for 10 or possibly 15 years; 25 years ago our economy was larger than China’s, and we are now 20% of the size of China. Those are the warning signals, and therefore investment in training is absolutely fundamental to the Government’s growth strategy.

I have six points, which I hope will be helpful, on aspects that I am worried about. First, as I said, we have been struggling with our training, career services and jobcentres for more than 50 years. There have been so many initiatives. Does the Minister accept that it is not going to take one year, nor five years, nor possibly even 10 years? This is a 20-year programme to get this right. It needs investment and long-term planning to achieve comprehensive reform.

Secondly, are the Government worried that there is a huge shortage of resources here? There are a number of schemes in this White Paper devolving to mayors eight trailblazers; we are going to spend £45 million next year. That is just £6 million per region. It sounds like quite a lot of money but in reality it is not, so there is just a slight worry that this is a sticking plaster trying to deal with a long-term problem. Too many of these funding projects are just for one year, when we actually need a long-term plan. The White Paper seeks to bring together the jobcentres and the National Careers Service to transform our training arrangements. This is going to involve a major culture change. Any other organisation undergoing this would be planning for the long term and understand that it is going to take a major effort to achieve it, let alone make an impact. Do the Government realise this?

Thirdly, the youth guarantee is a fine objective, but in the White Paper there is very little mention of the role of further education. This is one sector, outside universities, that has been neglected and underresourced over the last few years, but it is fundamental to all this. Are the Government going to set some objectives and produce a reform of further education?

Obviously, the one priority that the Government have set—quite rightly—is that we must clear the backlog in mental health care and in the health services, but all the evidence is that early intervention is required to get people back into work quickly. Is there a conflict between the long-term need to clear the backlog and having resources to deal with the short-term, immediate need?

Finally, reducing the backlog in the NHS, which is behind a lot of these problems, is going to require real progress in social care. I know that the Government are struggling to come up with their reforms on this, but I repeat that releasing the NHS beds that are being used for social care is absolutely fundamental to providing beds to get people back into the labour market. They cannot get the care at the moment.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I trust that the Minister will agree that the Social Security Advisory Committee made six reasonable recommendations in its letter. I urge all noble Lords to read it. I ask the Minister to respond to the letter, particularly covering the point about the additional cost of pension credit against the savings of the winter fuel allowance. There are a number of other benefits that pensioners may well get that could be impacted by taking pension credit. I am sure that all the things the committee raised in the letter would raise unintended consequences, but we want to avoid making a difficult position worse. I draw noble Lords’ attention to one:

“We would encourage the government to assess the equity of excluding housing benefit as a qualifying benefit on the basis of incomes after housing costs, rather than on the basis of gross incomes”.


When the Minister replies to that letter, I ask that she place a copy in the Library for all noble Lords to see.

State Pension: Age Increase

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, of all the weeks when I am not going to start making up national insurance policy on the hoof, this is most definitely one of them. However, I hear what my noble friend says, and I will pass that along.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact on employment, particularly for older people, of increasing NI contributions for employers, bearing in mind that the winter fuel payment has been withdrawn?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, to separate those two out, the Treasury has published documentation on GOV.UK relating to the Budget and an impact assessment of different aspects of the Budget. On the question of the winter fuel payment, the noble Baroness will know that the vast majority of people who will be entitled to it are being encouraged, if necessary, to apply for pension credit or other benefits. For most of the rest, many of them will not be in employment and will not intend to be in employment. The winter fuel payment is aimed at people of pension age, so I do not see the connection between the winter fuel payment and national insurance, but if the noble Baroness wants to speak to me about it afterwards, I am happy to talk to her.

Pension Credit

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure every pensioner who is eligible for Pension Credit receives it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government want all eligible pensioners to apply for pension credit. The Government have written to pensioners providing advice about claiming pension credit following the change to the winter fuel payment, alongside a range of other creative media campaigns. We are engaging directly with pensioners as well as with stakeholders, including devolved Governments, councils and charities, in a joint effort to raise awareness through our combined networks and channels.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord: feel free. Having run a pension credit campaign, I can understand what the Minister is undertaking. Do the Government intend to guarantee that the DWP has the capacity to deal with what could well be a rapid uptake of applications for pension credit—with all the extra administration needed to process the claims —after this Government’s shameful decision to deprive pensioners who need it most of their winter fuel payment?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, on that final point, which, obviously, I cannot let go, the poorest pensioners are protected because those on pension credit will still have access to the winter fuel payment.

On the bulk of the noble Baroness’s question, we continue to operate good service levels. Around 500 additional staff have now been brought in to support processing during the recent surge in pension credit claims. Processing times may increase; we have advised customers who apply that it could take nine weeks to process their claims. However, anyone who applies before the deadline of 21 December can have their application backdated, which means not only that they will get winter fuel payments but that they may well get pension credit on top of that.

Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Adding insult to injury, the fact that pensioners in Spain, Sweden and elsewhere in EU will still receive this money has been mentioned by a few of those writing to or messaging me. On rational, logical, compassionate grounds, I urge noble Lords to think carefully about what we could be doing, which is protecting the poorest pensioners through the winter who are otherwise going to be left at risk. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her appointment as a Minister. I genuinely wish her well in that capacity and look forward to working with her on areas where we can.

The Government’s decision to end the winter fuel payment for all pensioners except those in receipt of relevant benefits will be a real blow to millions of older people across the country this winter. Reducing financial support for older people before the colder months will harm many who rely on their winter fuel payment. This is a betrayal on a shocking scale. The Opposition are critical of this policy for three primary reasons: it will leave millions of vulnerable pensioners worse off this winter; the Government are wrong to prioritise above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers over the interests of vulnerable older people; and the Government were not straight with the British people about their plans during the general election this year. The Government should listen to the concerns of noble Lords and take time to consider how they can make the savings they need without punishing older people. That said, it is not the place of this House to override the decision of the elected House, and that is why the Opposition have tabled a regret Motion today.

In government, the Conservatives showed a stalwart commitment to pensioners who had paid in all their lives, with the triple lock, pensioner cost of living payments, the warm home discount and winter fuel payments. All these measures were either introduced or maintained by the Conservatives because we on these Benches know what is right for pensioners and that it is patently unfair to put the most vulnerable pensioners in jeopardy as winter approaches. The Conservative Party consistently did what was right for pensioners throughout our time in office, and there are valuable lessons for the Government in that record.

The winter fuel payment has been a lifeline for millions of pensioners, with 11.4 million older people receiving it in 2023. Vulnerable pensioners rely on this support, and it is that group about which the Opposition are most concerned. The Government have said that pensioners in receipt of relevant benefits will continue to receive winter fuel payments, but the Government’s own estimates show that approximately 880,000 households are eligible for pension credit but do not currently receive it.

It is important that we remember just what position those 880,000 people are in. To be eligible for pension credit, a single person must have a weekly income of less than £218.15; it is £332.95 for a couple. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and I ask the Minister: is she comfortable depriving 880,000 of the most vulnerable pensioners of the winter fuel payment this year?

In April this year, the now Prime Minister, writing in the Daily Express, said:

“I firmly believe that if you spend your lifetime working hard and contributing to society, you deserve a comfortable, secure retirement”.


He went on to say:

“It was that belief that meant the last Labour government introduced winter fuel payments, free bus passes and pension credits”.


Please can the Minister tell us in detail what has changed from that statement?

I trust noble Lords will forgive me if I pre-empt the Minister’s reply. We will hear, no doubt, that the previous Government left office with a £22 billion black hole in their public finances. This is not a fair statement of facts. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place, setting out the Conservatives’ supposed profligacy, she included in that calculation a total of £9.4 billion of spending on public sector pay awards. The Chancellor claims that these were a result of Conservative decisions, but they are political choices. It is not a fair presentation of the facts to say that the Conservatives are responsible for a £22 billion black hole when almost half of that calculation is made up of public sector pay awards agreed by the Government.

Ministers have also claimed that the public finances were worse than they expected when they took office earlier this year. I need not remind the House that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was founded under the Conservative Government, audited the public finances just 10 weeks before the general election was called. Indeed, since January this year the then shadow Chancellor, in line with constitutional convention, had privileged access to the Treasury Permanent Secretary. The books were open, yet the now Government did not come clean during this period about their plans to remove the winter fuel payment for most pensioners.

Indeed, if the public finances were as tight as the Chancellor would have us believe, Ministers would be showing pay restraint across the board. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Since taking office, the Government have allocated £8.3 billion for GB Energy, £7.3 billion for a national wealth fund and, of course, the £9.4 billion I spoke of a moment ago for vast above-inflation public sector pay awards. It is becoming clearer every day that the Government will prioritise train drivers, junior doctors and civil servants—their own political vanity projects—over the needs of the most vulnerable pensioners in our society.

In addition to these concerns, we must ask the Government whether this policy change will be successful in achieving its stated aim. During Treasury Questions in the other place last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that the Government expect to raise £1.5 billion a year by cancelling the winter fuel payment for the majority of pensioners. This led me to look up the total value of unclaimed pension credit. The latest official statistics show that up to £2.1 billion of available pension credit went unclaimed. If 100% of eligible pensioners claimed their pension credit, the Government would make no saving at all. We can conclude that the fact that 880,000 pensioners who are eligible for pension credit will be deprived of their winter fuel payment by the Government is not an unintended consequence. The savings the Government expect to make are predicated on those people not claiming.

We on these Benches put in a great deal of effort to drive up pension credit when we were in office. In June 2022 the Pensions Minister launched a campaign to urge pensioners to check whether they were eligible. In June 2023 the then Pensions Minister, Laura Trott, launched a further campaign and trialled the Invitation to Claim initiative through which the Department for Work and Pensions wrote directly to potentially eligible households that received housing benefit, encouraging them to apply. In July 2023 the DWP confirmed that these campaigns had been effective, and applications were around 75% higher in the year to May 2023 than in the same period the year before.

We have made progress on this in the past, and the Government’s new campaign is unlikely to succeed in getting every eligible person to claim pension credit. The Government should listen carefully to these concerns and take action to protect this vulnerable group.

While it is unlikely that we in this House will be able to convince the Government to change their chosen course—although I live in hope—I hope that the concerns raised by Members across the House will at least encourage Ministers to work on mitigating measures to ensure that pensioners eligible for pension credit are not left without the support they need.

I know that many noble Lords would want me also to highlight the needs of pensioners who are only just above the pension credit threshold. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has already done this. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have considered increasing the pension credit threshold so that pensioners in that group are protected?

Before I conclude, I ask the Minister whether she will commit—I implore her—to meeting concerned Peers to discuss other options to this policy, to suggest ways to make the pension credit uptake campaign more effective and to explore the alternatives. I know that noble Lords would appreciate the opportunity to engage with the Government constructively to protect the most vulnerable pensioners.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Government have the wrong priorities, putting public sector workers and their own vanity projects first while depriving vulnerable pensioners of a lifeline. Indeed, the Prime Minister is damned by his own words earlier this year, when he said he believes pensioners “deserve a comfortable … retirement”. This Government took office on a change theme, which we are so encouraged by, and said they would make money so that everybody would be better off and have a better quality of life. As yet I have not seen too much of the making of money, but I see a lot of taking and I hope it is not a trend that will continue.

Work Capability Assessment Consultation

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the start of the Statement. In all my time in the department, now being carried on by my noble friend the Minister, there was real ambition to help those people in the work capability assessment—earlier rather than later, because the longer you leave it, the worse the condition gets.

This weekend, I was trying to tidy up my study, which is a massive job, when I came across an independent evaluation of a programme we ran at Tomorrow’s People when I was there—I declare an interest, although I am not there any more. We had a programme in a doctor’s surgery called “The Right Prescription: A Job”. When somebody was physically or mentally unwell and came to the doctor, if there was nothing he could do for them, he called them his “heartsink patients” because his heart sank when they walked in the room. He wrote “a job” with us on the prescription pad.

We had a consulting room and, initially, we worked with a cohort of 200 people. The results were pretty astounding. We ended up with 880 surgeries across the country wanting us, representing millions of patients. The Government at the time—I will not declare which—said that it was too expensive, but for an investment of £2,000 you got a return to society of £10,000. We reduced the anti-depressant prescription bill by 34% for those 200, saved the doctor 20% of his time, saved referrals to counsellors and got people into work. On average, 80% of them were there 12 months later, although it was intense.

We must look at the consultation as an opportunity for people to put forward ideas that make life better for people. If the department will have me in for 10 minutes, I will certainly come back and share that evaluation to see whether it can help, because people with mental health issues in particular need all the help we can give them.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I take this opportunity to encourage all those who are interested to give input to the consultation. To pick up on my noble friend’s point about GPs, a key principle is that the WCA considers what impact the person’s disability or health condition has on them, not the condition itself. To clarify, the department does not ask claimants’ doctors to make decisions about their patients’ capability for work. This is because the doctor diagnoses and treats a patient’s illness, whereas the WCA healthcare professional’s role is to assess the effects of the claimant’s illness on their ability to perform everyday work-related activity. It is important to make that distinction.

Reducing Parental Conflict

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with the Reducing Parental Conflict programme, and what plans they have for the future of that programme.

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

My Lords, since its announcement, we have allocated £77 million to the reducing parental conflict programme, 151 local authorities have been directly supported, and the programme has developed evidence and approaches to relationship support that benefit families. We are committed to a cross-government approach to provide a strong, early help offer to families, and we continue integration into local services and alignment with other key government programmes, including family hubs and Supporting Families.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am very encouraged about the encouragement of cross-government department working. If I have understood it correctly, Supporting Families is being more aligned to DfE work and family hubs. Does my noble friend agree that there is much to be gained by aligning the reducing parental conflict programme in this way?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I believe the work achieved and continuing to be done within the RPC is invaluable. The programme has had three interim reports published that give strong evidence for that. As announced yesterday, three reports to be published in due course further demonstrate the impact of the programme with more granular detail. We are working to integrate RPC outcomes into other key government programmes, including family hubs and the Supporting Families programme, but for the moment the RPC programme remains firmly within DWP.

Pension Funds: Investments and Tax Relief

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about defined benefit schemes, which he will know are still maturing, with decreasing numbers of active contributing members and increasing numbers of pensioner members. It is therefore important that their pensions are properly protected and that these schemes are properly funded. The majority of schemes in the DB sector are well run, plan for the future and manage their risks effectively, but the gist of the noble Lord’s question is that there is still more to be done.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

What assessment has been made of the burdens placed on trustees in respect of reporting? This must have a chilling effect on getting people to become trustees of pension funds.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

We are not unaware of this. We have carefully considered the balance between the burden of reporting requirements for trustees on climate risk and the need for urgent action in this area. That is why we have introduced TCFD requirements only for the very largest schemes, as my noble friend will probably be aware, which have, let us face it, more capability and capacity. It gives us the widest coverage of pension scheme numbers while minimising burdens on trustees.